holding that scope of reply brief is limited, and appellant abandons all issues not raised and argued in initial brief on appeal
How later courts described this case
- holding that scope of reply brief is limited, and appellant abandons all issues not raised and argued in initial brief on appeal
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-10542
Summary Calendar
CHARLES LACY,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
ART MOSLEY, Deputy Executive Director TDCJ;
ROBERT KOENIG, Risk Management Manager TDCJ;
DARWIN SANDERS, Warden I; MILTON DIXON,
Unit Risk Management Coordinator;
RONALD BRIGGS, Food Service Manager III,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 2:99-CV-67
--------------------------------
April 3, 2002
Before JOLLY, DEMOSS and STEWART, Circuit Judges:
PER CURIAM:*
Charles Lacy, Texas prisoner # 511409, appeals from the district court’s grant of the
defendants’ motion for summary judgment based on a defense of qualified immunity. Lacy argues
that there is a genuine issue of material fact regarding his contention that the defendants were
deliberately indifferent to inmate safety because they caused inmates in the food services department
to transport hot water in plastic trash cans that collapsed when filled with hot water and caused a burn
on Lacy’s ankle. In his reply brief, he belatedly asserted that the defendants were no entitled to
t
*
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be
published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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.
qualified immunity because they did not allege that their actions regarding the prison’s water
transportation policy was a discretionary function. See Cinel v. Connick, 15 F.3d 1338, 1345 (5th
Cir. 1994)(holding that scope of reply brief is limited, and appellant abandons all issues not raised and
argued in initial brief on appeal).
The undisputed summary judgement evidence demonstrates that, based on two accidents prior
to Lacy’s injury, the defendants were aware of a risk to inmate safety caused by defective wheels on
the barrels used to transport hot water in the food services department. However, the undisputed
evidence also demonstrates that the defendants took reasonable measures to prevent future accidents
or injuries by replacing any broken wheels and providing additional training for the inmates who
worked in the food services department. Thus, the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity.
Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 639 (1987); Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 819 (1982).
Lacy does not challenge on appeal the district court’s conclusion that the defendants took reasonable
measures to abate the risk of injury from defective wheels. Moreover, Lacy has failed to establish
by way of summary judgment evidence that the prior accidents were caused by plastic barrels
collapsing on their own when filled with hot water. See FED. R. CIV. P. 56; Little v. Liquid Air Corp.,
37 F.3d 1069, 1075 (5th Cir. 1994)(en banc). The district court’s grant of summary judgment is
AFFIRMED.
-2-