Windell Blount, et al v. Mississippi Dept of Human, No. 17-60229 (5th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 17-60229 Document: 00514171090 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/26/2017 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 17-60229 Summary Calendar WINDELL C. BLOUNT; JAMES M. EVANS, SR., United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED September 26, 2017 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Plaintiffs – Appellants, v. MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES; RICHARD BERRY, Executive Director; LINDA SLAUGHTER, Regional Director; WALLEY NAYLOR, Director of the Division of Field Operations; RUTH ANN WILLIAMS, Mississippi Access and Visitation Director; NELENE LEDFORD, Mississippi Access and Visitation; PETRA KAY, Families First Resource Center Director; FAYE PETERSEN, Family Master Appointee by the Department of Human Services; SEQUOIA EUBANKS, Social Worker; ANDREAL HARPER, Social Worker; VERNASSIA HARBIN, Department Supervisor; JUDY PRICE, Case Worker; O. J. PAGE, Defendants – Appellees. ---------------------------------------WINDELL C. BLOUNT; JAMES M. EVANS, SR., Plaintiffs – Appellants, v. MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES; RICHARD BERRY, Executive Director; LINDA SLAUGHTER, Regional Director; WALLEY NAYLOR, Director of the Division of Field Operations; RUTH ANN WILLIAMS, Mississippi Access and Visitation; NELENE LEDFORD, Mississippi Access and Visitation; PETRA KAY, Families First Resource Center Director; FAYE PETERSEN, Family Master Appointee by the Department of Human Services; SEQUOIA EUBANKS, Social Worker; ANDREAL HARPER, Social Worker; VERNASSIA HARBIN, Department Case: 17-60229 Document: 00514171090 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/26/2017 No. 17-60229 Supervisor; JUDY PRICE, Case Worker; Lieutenant O. J. PAGE, Jackson Police Officer/Hinds County Court Service, Defendants – Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi USDC No. 3:14-CV-336, 3:15-CV-404 Before KING, ELROD, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Pro se Plaintiffs–Appellants Windell C. Blount and James M. Evans, Sr. appeal the district court’s February 28, 2017 final judgment in favor of Defendants–Appellees. On appeal, Plaintiffs–Appellants argue that this case turns on the application of section 79-11-141 of the Mississippi Code, which addresses the liability of persons who purport to act as or on behalf of a corporation while knowing there is no incorporation. Miss. Code Ann. § 79-11141. In addition, among other things, Plaintiffs–Appellants continue to seek damages pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged violations of the First, Fourth, Fifth, Fourteenth, and Sixteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. Having reviewed the orders referenced in the district court’s February 28, 2017 final judgment and the appellants’ somewhat confusing brief, this court is satisfied that the district court did not commit any reversible error. Accordingly, the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED. Pursuant to Fifth Circuit Rule 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 Fifth Circuit Rule 47.5.4. * 2 Case: 17-60229 Document: 00514171090 Page: 3 Date Filed: 09/26/2017 No. 17-60229 Also pending are the following motions filed by Plaintiffs–Appellants: (1) a motion to strike a portion of the brief filed by Defendant–Appellee Petra Kay, (2) a motion to strike portions of the brief filed by Defendant–Appellee O. J. Page, (3) a motion to strike any and all references to any immunity from the brief of Defendants–Appellees Mississippi Department of Human Services, Richard Berry, Linda Slaughter, Walley Naylor, Ruth Ann Williams, Nelene Ledford, Faye Peterson, Sequioia Eubanks, Andreal Harper, Vernassia Harbin, and Judy Price, (4) a motion to strike the joinder filed by Defendant– Appellee Petra Kay, and (5) an opposed motion for default judgment. Having considered the above-referenced motions, it is further ordered that each motion is DENIED. 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.
