Bradley v. Gaspard, 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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
November 16, 2004
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-30974
Summary Calendar
WILBERT BRADLEY,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
DANNY GASPARD, Sergeant; WILBUR JACOBS, Sergeant,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Louisiana
USDC No. 00-CV-260-B
--------------------
Before JONES, BARKSDALE and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Wilbert Bradley, Louisiana prisoner no. 118934, appeals the
jury verdict against him in his civil rights action under 42
U.S.C. § 1983. Bradley alleged that prison guards wrongly
allowed another inmate to enter Bradley’s cell and attack him.
Defendant Jacobs was dismissed, and Bradley does not appeal that
dismissal. Bradley contends that the jury verdict for the
remaining defendant was not supported by evidence. He also
contends that the district court erred by not allowing two

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 03-30974
-2-
witnesses to testify, by allowing the defendant to file a second
motion for summary judgment, and by denying Bradley’s motion for
summary judgment.
There was evidence that the assailant deliberately misled
the inexperienced defendant by telling him to open the wrong cell
door and that the defendant did so in error. Bradley presented
evidence that could have established the defendant’s negligence,
but a reasonable jury could easily conclude that the defendant
did not act with the requisite “deliberate indifference” to
Bradley’s safety. See Neals v. Norwood, 59 F.3d 530, 533 (5th
Cir. 1995) (discussing deliberate indifference); Granberry v.
O’Barr, 866 F.2d 112, 113 (5th Cir. 1988) (jury verdict will be
upheld unless reasonable jury could not reach that verdict).
Bradley offers only short, bald conclusions without factual
or legal analysis with regard to his other claims. Consequently,
those claims are waived. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 225
(5th Cir. 1993) (even pro se litigants must brief issues); see
also Brown v. Slenker, 220 F.3d 411, 421 n.9 (5th Cir. 2000)
(summary judgment rulings mooted by trial).
The judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --