Anita Krecic v. Clarence Brown, et al, No. 12-60514 (5th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this Case
The court issued a subsequent related opinion or order on January 20, 2014.
Download PDF
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 No. 12-60514 FILED 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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 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). 1 Deborah Mosby, another Mississippi prisoner, was a named plaintiff in the 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. 2 3 Similarly, 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
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.
