Bobby Lucky v. Kelli Ward, et al, No. 11-40447 (5th Cir. 2012)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Case: 11-40447 Document: 00511735593 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/25/2012 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED No. 11-40447 Summary Calendar January 25, 2012 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk BOBBY LUCKY, Plaintiff-Appellant v. KELLI WARD; RICHARD A. TRINCI, JR.; CHUMA ANADUAKA; KATHRYN ANN BELL; DOCTOR BRUCE SMITH; AND JANE DOE, Defendants-Appellees Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 3:05-CV-166 Before BENAVIDES, STEWART, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Bobby Lucky, formerly Texas prisoner # 1048046, filed a complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Kelli Ward, Richard A. Trinci, Jr., Chuma Anaduaka, Kathryn Ann Bell, Dr. Bruce Smith, and Jane Doe. The district court granted the defendants motion for summary judgment and denied Lucky s motion under Rule 59(e) of the Federal rules of Civil Procedure. This court affirmed the district court judgment. * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 11-40447 Document: 00511735593 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/25/2012 No. 11-40447 More than a year later, Lucky filed in the district court a new motion for reconsideration or a rehearing, arguing that the district court erred in granting summary judgment for the defendants because the defendants failed to submit sufficient affidavits, the trial court failed to issue a scheduling order which caused him to miss his opportunity to respond to the motion for summary judgment, and he was impeded in responding by the State of Texas. The district court denied the motion, noting that it had ruled on some of Lucky s arguments when it ruled on his Rule 59(e) motion and that this court had affirmed its judgment on the matter. Lucky now appeals, arguing only reasons why the district court erred in granting summary judgment. He has identified no error in the district court s denial of his new motion for reconsideration. Although pro se briefs are liberally construed, even pro se litigants must brief arguments in order to preserve them. Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 225 (5th Cir. 1993). Failure to identify any error in the district court s analysis is the same as if the appellant had not appealed the judgment. Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987). The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. 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.