Angela Greely v. Jim Elliott, et al, No. 09-20205 (5th Cir. 2009)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED No. 09-20205 Summary Calendar December 9, 2009 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk ANGELA DELORES KIRKEND GREELY, Plaintiff-Appellant v. JIM ELLIOTT, Chief of Police; SONNY GONZALES, JR., Patrol Sergeant; CHRISTINA MELTON CRAIN, Chairman Person; ALL NAME AND UNNAMED PERSONS MEDICAL DEPARTMENT OF EL CAMPO TX; NAME AND UNNAMED MEDICAL PERSONS IN THE TEXAS MEDICAL DEPARTMENT MEDICAL DEPARTMENT IN EL CAMPO POLICE DEPARTMENT; NAME AND UNNAMED PERSON AND PERSONS IN THE MEDICAL DEPARTMENT OF TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE; UNIT OF LANE MURRAY, Defendants-Appellees Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4:08-CV-3330 Before JONES, Chief Judge, and DAVIS and WIENER, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Angela Delores Kirkend Greely appeals the district court s dismissal of her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. Greely alleged in the district court that various * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR .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. No. 09-20205 officials and employees of the El Campo (Texas) Police Department and the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ) were deliberately indifferent to her medical needs. The district court concluded that Greely s claims against the El Campo defendants were untimely and that her claims against the TDCJ defendants failed to show either personal involvement or a policy that resulted in the denial of her constitutional rights. The district court dismissed her complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) as frivolous and for failure to state a claim. Greely s appellate brief does not address the district court s reasons for dismissing her claims. Although we apply less stringent standards to parties proceeding pro se than to parties represented by counsel and liberally construe briefs of pro se litigants, pro se parties must still brief the issues and reasonably comply with the requirements of Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 28. Grant v. Cuellar, 59 F.3d 523, 524 (5th Cir. 1995). We will not raise and discuss legal issues that Greely has failed to assert; when an appellant fails to identify any error in the district court s analysis, it is the same as if the appellant had not appealed that judgment. Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987). Because Greely has failed to brief any issue, her appeal is frivolous and is dismissed. See 5 TH C IR. R. 42.2. Greely is warned that the filing of repetitious or frivolous appeals may result in the imposition of sanctions against her. These sanctions may include dismissal, monetary sanctions, and restrictions on her ability to file pleadings in this court and any court subject to this court s jurisdiction. APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED. 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
