Waller v. Tuten, et al

United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit

No. 20-30067
Summary Calendar

Thomas Wayne Waller,

Plaintiff—Appellant,

versus

Jim Tuten; Mike Stone; James LeBlanc; John or Jane
Doe; Clerk of Court Lincoln Parish,

Defendants—Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
USDC No. 3:19-CV-1177

Before King, Smith, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Thomas Wayne Waller sued, inter alia, the Sheriff of Lincoln Parish,
Louisiana, the Lincoln Parish Clerk of Court, and employees of the Lincoln
Parish Detention Center under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, asserting 11 claims for

*
Pursuant to 5th 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
September 16, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Case: 20-30067 Document: 00515567531 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/16/2020

No. 20-30067
2
relief, among them that the defendants miscalculated his incarceration time
and violated his right to privacy. Finding that Waller’s improper-calculation
claim was duplicative—and therefore frivolous—and that his remaining
claims were either frivolous or failed to state a claim on which relief may be
granted, the district court dismissed the action. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) & (ii); Bailey v. Johnson, 846 F.2d 1019, 1021 (5th Cir.
1988) (explaining that a claim dismissed as duplicative is considered
frivolous). Waller appeals.
Waller fails to show reversible error. See Samford v. Dretke, 562 F.3d
674, 678 (5th Cir. 2009). With the exception of his improper-calculation and
denial-of-privacy claims, Waller does not discuss his claims with any
specificity and has therefore waived appellate review of the nine inadequately
briefed claims. See Procter & Gamble Co. v. Amway Corp., 376 F.3d 496, 499
n.1 (5th Cir. 2004). Furthermore, Waller fails to show error in the district
court’s determination that his remaining improper-calculation and denial-of-
privacy claims either are frivolous or fail to state an actionable basis for relief.
See Taylor v. Books A Million, Inc., 296 F.3d 376, 378 (5th Cir. 2002);
Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir.
1987).
Accordingly, the judgment is AFFIRMED.

Case: 20-30067 Document: 00515567531 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/16/2020