Brackens, et al v. City of Ennis Texas, 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-10086
Summary Calendar
VIRLEY BRACKENS; WILLIE BRACKENS,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
versus
CITY OF ENNIS, TEXAS; ENNIS POLICE DEPARTMENT; ENNIS INDEPENDENT
SCHOOL DISTRICT; THE ELLIS COUNTY NEWSPAPERS, INC., doing
business as The Ennis Daily News; SHERRY WILLIAMS, doing business
as The Press,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 3:97-CV-2502-H
--------------------
January 3, 2000
Before REAVLEY, BARKSDALE and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Virley and Willie Brackens appeal the district court’s
granting of the defendants’ Rule 12(b) motions for dismissal and
the granting of the defendants’ summary judgment motions. In
their suit, Mr. and Mrs. Brackens alleged various claims, under
42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983, 1985 and state law, against the

-- 1 of 3 --

No. 99-10086
-2-
defendants. An examination of the record shows that the Brackens
have failed to allege or to support an issue that could justify
an award in their favor; their arguments are fully and correctly
answered by the district court and the judgment is affirmed.
Mr. and Mrs. Brackens argue that the district court
improperly dismissed the supplemental state law claims because it
was injurious to divide their federal and state claims and that
the district court improperly granted summary judgment because
genuine issues of material fact existed. Mr. and Mrs. Brackens
did not brief the dismissals of the Ennis Police Department and
Sherry Williams, and those claims are abandoned. See Yohey v.
Collins, 985 F.3d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993).
Summary judgment was proper because there was no genuine
issue of material fact and the defendants were entitled to
judgment as a matter of law. See Rivers v. Central and South
West Corp., 186 F.3d 681, 683 (5th Cir. 1999). The Ennis Daily
News, owned by the Ellis County Newspapers, Inc., cannot be
liable for any of Mr. and Mrs. Brackens’ claims because it was
not in business at the time the alleged constitutional violations
took place. Mr. and Mrs. Brackens’ § 1981 and § 1983 claims
against the City of Ennis and the Ennis Independent School
District fail because they do not identify a policy or custom
which caused the constitutional injury and they do not provide
evidence in the record of intentional discrimination on the basis
of race. See Jett v. Dallas Indep. Sch. Dist., 491 U.S. 701,

-- 2 of 3 --

No. 99-10086
-3-
735-36 (1989); Gros v. City of Grand Prairie, Texas, 181 F.3d
613, 615 (5th Cir. 1999); Coleman v. Houston Indep. Sch. Dist.,
113 F.3d 528, 533 (5th Cir. 1997). Mr. and Mrs. Brackens’ § 1985
claims fail because Mr. and Mrs. Brackens have not demonstrated
that the defendants were motivated by an invidious discriminatory
animus. See Coleman, 113 F.3d at 533.
The dismissal of the supplemental state law claims was not
an abuse of discretion because all of the federal claims were
properly dismissed. See Batiste v. Island Records, Inc., 179
F.3d 217, 226 (5th Cir. 1999).
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --