The opinion
Case: 22-10120 Document: 00516630337 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/31/2023
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
____________
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 22-10120
Summary Calendar FILED
____________ January 31, 2023
Lyle W. Cayce
Travis Blank, Clerk
Plaintiff—Appellant,
versus
United States of America; Charles Eilert, D.O.; Aminia
Baruti, M.D.,
Defendants—Appellees.
______________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:20-CV-96
______________________________
Before Barksdale, Elrod, and Haynes, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam: *
Travis Blank, former federal prisoner # 16486-078 and proceeding pro
se, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his claims under the Federal Tort
Claims Act against the United States, following a bench trial and the award
of costs to the United States. Blank contends the court: erred by concluding
_____________________
*
This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-10120 Document: 00516630337 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/31/2023
No. 22-10120
he failed to establish his medical-malpractice claims; and abused its
discretion in awarding costs to the United States. (Blank’s claims against the
two other defendants were dismissed on qualified-immunity grounds at the
summary-judgment stage and were not timely appealed. Accordingly, they
are not before us in this appeal.)
We review the district court’s bench trial “findings of fact for clear
error and conclusions of law de novo”, Villafranca v. United States, 587 F.3d
257, 260 (5th Cir. 2009); the award of costs, for “a clear abuse of discretion”,
U.S. ex rel. Long v. GSDMIdea City, L.L.C., 807 F.3d 125, 128 (5th Cir. 2015).
Where, as here, appellant fails to provide the transcript necessary to
evaluate the district court’s factual findings—which the parties agreed before
trial were the only issues in dispute—we have the discretion either to dismiss
the “appeal for failure to provide a complete transcript of the record on
appeal” or to “decide those issues which can be reached on the record
before” us. Coats v. Pierre, 890 F.2d 728, 731 (5th Cir. 1989) (citation
omitted). We opt for the former procedure because the record on appeal is
insufficient for our reviewing whether the court committed clear error in its
factual findings. Id.
As for the bill of costs, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(1)
establishes “a strong presumption that the prevailing party will be awarded
costs”. Pacheco v. Mineta, 448 F.3d 783, 793 (5th Cir. 2006). “[A] district
court may, but is not required to, deny a prevailing party costs where suit was
brought in good faith and denial is based on at least one of” certain factors,
including, relevant here, “the losing party’s limited financial resources” and
the “substantial benefit conferred to the public”. Smith v. Chrysler Grp.,
L.L.C., 909 F.3d 744, 753 (5th Cir. 2018) (emphasis in original) (citation
omitted). Even assuming Blank brought his action in good faith, he
demonstrated neither limited financial resources nor that this proceeding
2
Case: 22-10120 Document: 00516630337 Page: 3 Date Filed: 01/31/2023
No. 22-10120
conferred a substantial benefit to the public. E.g., id. The court did not abuse
its discretion in awarding costs to the United States. E.g., U.S. ex rel. Long,
807 F.3d at 128.
AFFIRMED.
3