Harold Blakely v. City of Laurel, et al, No. 15-60718 (5th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 15-60718 Document: 00513439035 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/25/2016 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 15-60718 Summary Calendar United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED March 25, 2016 HAROLD J. BLAKELY, Plaintiff - Appellant Lyle W. Cayce Clerk v. CITY OF LAUREL; SHANNON CARAWAY, Police Officer; DARLEAN NORRIS, Police Officer; CECELIA ARNOLD, former Municipal Court Judge; JACQUELINE JACKSON, Deputy Clerk; SONYA PAYTON, Complainant, Defendants - Appellees Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi USDC No. 2:14-CV-82 Before REAVLEY, SMITH, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* This case arises from Harold J. Blakely’s arrest based on charges filed by his sister, Sonya Payton (“Payton”). Blakely sued the arresting officers, the judge who issued the warrants, the deputy clerk, the City of Laurel (“Municipal Defendants”), as well as his sister. He appeals the district court’s denial of his 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 15-60718 Document: 00513439035 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/25/2016 No. 15-60718 motions for default judgment and dismissal of his claims. Blakely’s notice of appeal referenced “orders entered in this civil action on the 17th day of September, 2015.” Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 3 states that the contents of the notice of appeal must “designate the judgment, order, or part thereof being appealed.” Fed. R. App. P. 3(c)(1)(B). Blakely’s reference to “orders” entered on a certain date may pass muster. On appeal, Blakely does not adequately explain his arguments or provide supporting authority. Arguments not adequately briefed are deemed to be waived. U.S. v. Scroggins, 599 F.3d 433, 446 (5th Cir. 2010). Notwithstanding, his claims fail on the merits and we affirm for the following reasons. First, Blakely filed a motion for default judgment against the Municipal Defendants. The district court correctly denied the motion, finding that the defendants had all properly appeared and defended the matter. Additionally, in its order the court disposed of Blakely’s request to disqualify Defendant’s counsel, Brett Woods Robinson, appropriately concluding that Blakely presented no evidence of a conflict of interest or of defense counsel’s impropriety. Next, as to Blakely’s motion for default judgment against Payton, the district court was well within its discretion in denying the motion as premature. It was also proper for the court to decline to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over the claim against Payton, because it had dismissed all claims over which it had original jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(3). Finally, in its Memorandum Opinion and Order, the court thoroughly analyzed the issues and accurately held that the Municipal Defendants were entitled to immunity and that Blakely failed to assert valid claims for which relief could be granted. 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.
