Young, et al v. Sprint Spectrum L P, et al

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
April 18, 2003
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
For the Fifth Circuit
___________________________________
No. 02-30191
___________________________________
HAROLD YOUNG, Etc.; et al.,
Plaintiffs,
HAROLD YOUNG, Individually and as owner of Harold’s Barber Shop
and Sweet Shop, and Harold’s Residential Apartments; DWAN BROWN;
TOMMIE LEE BROWN; DEBORAH SINGLETON; CURTIS RICK COLEMAN,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
VERSUS
SPRINT SPECTRUM LP, Etc., et al.
Defendants,
SPRINT SPECTRUM LP, aka Sprint PCS, aka Sprint Personal
Communications,
Defendant-Appellee.
___________________________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
For the Eastern District of Louisiana, New Orleans
00-CV-2523-M
___________________________________________________________

-- 1 of 3 --

*U.S. Circuit Judge, Ninth Circuit, sitting by designation.
**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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
-2-
Before: DAVIS, HALL*, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM**:
Appellants did not come forward with sufficient evidence to
create a genuine issue of material fact that Sprint was a state
actor. Appellants point to nothing beyond conclusory allegations
to support their argument of a conspiracy between Sprint and
anyone else that would give rise to a cause of action under 42
U.S.C. § 1985. Assuming, arguendo, that Appellants’ 42 U.S.C. §
1981 claims did not require state action, Appellants have still
failed to come forward with evidence to rebut Sprint’s legitimate
nondiscriminatory reasons for why they placed the monopole in
appellants’ neighborhood. Enplanar, Inc. v. Marsh, 11 F.3d 1284,
1294-95 (5th Cir. 1994) (to defeat summary judgment in 42 U.S.C.
§ 1981 action, plaintiffs must come forth with sufficient
evidence to rebut a defendant’s proffered nondiscriminatory

-- 2 of 3 --

-3-
reasons). The district court therefore properly granted summary
adjudication on Appellants’ federal claims.
Appellants have not identified sufficient evidence to
support a claim for damages based on emotional distress or mental
anguish. Although Appellants also raised other issues of error
in regard to the district court’s grant of summary adjudication
on other state law claims, their briefs failed to explain how the
district court erred. We therefore do not consider them. United
States v. Tomblin, 46 F.3d 1369, 1376 n.13 (5th Cir. 1995) (this
court generally does not consider issues raised but not supported
by legal authority).
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --