Sanchez v. Abbott Laboratories, et al

* 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
May 20, 2005
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-20863
Summary Calendar
RICHARD SANCHEZ; RICHARD SANCHEZ, as next friend of A S
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
versus
ABBOTT LABORATORIES INC; ET AL
Defendants
ABBOTT LABORATORIES INC; MEDLINE INDUSTRIES INC
Defendants-Appellees
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Souther District of Texas, Houston
USDC No. 4:03-CV-1820
--------------------
Before WIENER, BENAVIDES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Plaintiff-Appellant Richard Sanchez appeals the district
court’s order granting Defendants-Appellees’ motion for summary
judgment. We review summary judgments de novo and apply the same
standard as the district court. Machinchick v. PB Power, Inc.,
398 F.3d 345, 349 (5th Cir. 2005).
Appellant filed suit in this case because his severely

-- 1 of 3 --

disabled ten-year-old child became seriously ill. He attributed
his child’s illness to the feeding tube food manufactured by
Appellee Abbott Laboratories Inc. and shipped by Appellee Medline
Industries Inc. In granting the motion to dismiss, the district
court found that proximate causation had not been shown between
any potential contamination or spoilage of the food and the
child’s subsequent illness. Appellant’s brief advances several
arguments regarding what he argues were improper exclusions of
witness testimony and an affidavit by the district court. The
district court concluded, though, that even if the evidence had
been admitted, it still failed to show proximate causation of the
child’s illness.
Appellant’s brief concerns itself with admission of the
testimony and the affidavit and does not meaningfully contest the
independent causation ground for summary judgment. See FED. R.
APP. P. 28(a)(9)(A) (“[T]he argument . . . must contain
appellant’s contentions and the reasons for them, with citations
to the authorities and parts of the record on which the appellant
relies.”). We thus deem the argument to be conceded. See Local
Union No. 898 of the Int’l Bhd. of Elec. Workers v. XL Elec.,
Inc., 380 F.3d 868, 871 (5th Cir. 2004) (“The Union has not made
any argument challenging the merits of the district court’s
ultimate conclusion that the Agreement was properly terminated.
The Union thus waived any argument along those lines . . . .”);
Green v. State Bar, 27 F.3d 1083, 1089 (5th Cir. 1994) (“A party

-- 2 of 3 --

who inadequately briefs an issue is considered to have abandoned
the claim.”). Therefore, we affirm.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --