Anita Krecic v. Clarence Brown

Case: 12-60514 Document: 00512475788 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/18/2013

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

No. 12-60514 December 18, 2013

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

ANITA KRECIC,

Plaintiff - Appellant

v.

CLARENCE BROWN, Parole Board Member; DANNY D. GUICE, Parole Board

Member; BETTY LOU JONES, Parole Board Member; BOBBIE S. THOMAS,

Parole Board Member; SHANNON J. WARNOCK, Parole Board Chairman;

STEPHANIE SKIPPER, Correctional Secretary, Administrative,

Defendants - Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 3:11-CV-193

Before BARKSDALE, PRADO, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Anita Krecic, Mississippi prisoner # 44712, sued members of the

Mississippi Parole Board (collectively, the “Defendants”) asserting various

claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and seeking to represent a class of similarly

situated prisoners. The parties consented to the magistrate judge presiding

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

Case: 12-60514 Document: 00512475788 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/18/2013

No. 12-60514

over all proceedings conducted in the district court. 1 Krecic appeals the

magistrate judge’s order granting summary judgment in favor of the

Defendants, dismissing the § 1983 complaint, and denying her outstanding

motions. 2 We AFFIRM.

We review de novo a grant of summary judgment and apply the same

standard as the district court. Nickell v. Beau View of Biloxi, L.L.C., 636 F.3d

752, 754 (5th Cir. 2011). “The [district] court shall grant summary judgment

if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact

and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” FED. R. CIV. P.

56(a).

Although Krecic asserts on appeal that she filed suit against the

Defendants in their official and individual capacities, she does not address the

magistrate judge’s conclusion that the Defendants are entitled to immunity

under the Eleventh Amendment. Therefore, she has abandoned any challenge

to the magistrate judge’s decision on this issue. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d

222, 225 (5th Cir. 1993) (“[W]e liberally construe the briefs of pro se appellants”

but still “require that arguments must be briefed to be preserved” (citation and

internal quotation marks omitted)). 3 Because Krecic’s arguments on appeal

To the extent that Krecic challenges the magistrate judge’s jurisdiction to conduct

1

the proceedings in the district court, the argument is refuted by the record. The record

contains a signed, written consent form demonstrating that Krecic agreed to proceed to final

judgment before the magistrate judge. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1).

Deborah Mosby, another Mississippi prisoner, was a named plaintiff in the

2

proceedings before the district court. Both Krecic and Mosby appealed, but their appeal was

dismissed for want of prosecution. We subsequently granted Krecic’s motion to reinstate the

appeal as to her appeal only.

3Similarly, Krecic has abandoned any challenge to the magistrate judge's conclusion

that she sued the Defendants only in their official capacities because she fails to present

arguments or authorities supporting the position that she sued the Defendants individually

or that they would be liable in that capacity. See Yohey, 985 F.2d at 225; see also Douglas W.

2

Case: 12-60514 Document: 00512475788 Page: 3 Date Filed: 12/18/2013

No. 12-60514

fail to establish that the Defendants are not entitled to immunity, we need not

reach the merits of Krecic’s claims.

AFFIRMED.

ex rel. Jason D.W. v. Hous. Indep. Sch. Dist., 158 F.3d 205, 210 n.4 (5th Cir. 1998) (“[F]ailure

to provide any legal or factual analysis of an issue on appeal waives that issue.”).

3