Livingston, et al v. DeSoto Independent, 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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
March 2, 2006
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-10778
Summary Calendar
AUDREY LIVINGSTON, As Representatives of
the Estate of Kourtni Kelley Livingston, Deceased;
ROBERT M. LIVINGSTON, As Representatives of the
Estate of Kourtni Kelley Livingston, Deceased,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
versus
DESOTO INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT; ET AL,
Defendants,
DESOTO INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT; LARRY
GOAD, Head Coach; SCOTT GALLOWAY, Head Trainer,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas
(3:04-CV-1818)
--------------------
Before KING, WIENER, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Plaintiffs-Appellants, as representatives of the Estate of
Kourtni Kelley Livingston, their deceased minor daughter, appeal
the summary judgment rulings of the district court (1) dismissing
for qualified immunity the federal constitutional claims of the
Estate against individual Defendants-Appellees Goad and Galloway,
respectively a coach and a trainer, based on assertions of their

-- 1 of 3 --

2
deliberate indifference, and (2) dismissing the Estate’s claims
against Defendant-Appellee DeSoto Independent School District based
on allegations of its failure to adopt an appropriate policy (or
its adoption of an inappropriate policy) for the care for students
suddenly taken ill. The foundation of all constitutional claims
against all Defendants-Appellees is the deliberate indifference to
medical needs, assertedly causing the tragic sudden death of
Plaintiffs’ decedent. Finally, the Estate representatives appeal
the dismissal of their state law tort claims arising from the same
regrettable incident.
We have carefully reviewed the record on appeal, including the
excellent briefs of the parties and the thorough Memorandum Opinion
and Order of the district court. Even though we recognize and
accept Plaintiffs-Appellants’ characterizations of a handful of
discrepancies between the summary judgment evidence and a few
statements and conclusions of the district court, we are satisfied
that the parties and the court are in substantial agreement about
the operative facts taken in the light most favorable to the non-
movants —— albeit not necessarily their respective
characterizations of the legal effects —— that lie at the heart of
this controversy. Like the district court, we are convinced that
the well-developed jurisprudence governing cases grounded in
deliberate indifference to medical needs, both as to the actions or
inaction of individuals and to policies of municipalities and other
governmental subdivisions, are determinative of this case.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
Our sympathy to the contrary notwithstanding, we conclude in
the end that the district court correctly disposed of all federal
and state claims asserted in this action and all controlling
issues, both claims against the individual defendants and those
against the School District. Consequently, no useful purpose would
be served by our writing extensively, as we would only paraphrase
the opinion of the district court or otherwise reiterate its full
and legally accurate explication of the disposition of this action
by summary judgment. Thus, for essentially the reasons set forth by
the district court in its Memorandum Opinion and Order signed May
12, 2005, the take-nothing judgment adverse to Plaintiffs-
Appellants in this case and all others implicated in this appeal
are
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --