No. 99-60595
-1-
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-60595
Summary Calendar
DEIDRA MCMILLAN; JAMES D. MCMILLAN; NIKKI MCMILLAN;
GACIEN MCMILLAN; ANTHONY MCMILLAN; DAMERON MCMILLAN;
BRIAN MCMILLAN; LYNDEZ MCMILLAN; LULA TRUSSELL;
BIANCA K. WILLIAMS; KIARA T. WILLIAMS, Minor children
by and through their mother and next friend, Lula Trussell,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
versus
JACKSON COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, ET AL.,
Defendants,
JACKSON COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, in their official
capacity as the supervising authority for the Jackson County
Sheriff’s Department Drug Task Force; PETE POPE, Sheriff of
Jackson County, Mississippi, individually and in his official
capacity as the Sheriff of Jackson County, Mississippi;
KENNITH MCCLENIC, JR.; RICHARD RADER; CRAIG DOUGLAS; JAMES
SEARS, also known as Mick Sears; DEAN REITER; GLEN GREENE,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Mississippi
USDC No. 1:97-CV-430-GR
--------------------
April 6, 2000
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DeMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Plaintiffs seek reversal of the district court’s summary
judgment dismissing their federal claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
No. 99-60595
-2-
and the district court’s decision to decline to exercise
supplemental jurisdction over the plaintiffs’ Mississippi state
law claims. The § 1983 claims were brought against the officers
in their official capacities, with the exception of Sheriff Pope,
who was sued in both his individual and official capacities.
Thus, the suit against the officers in their official capacities
is in reality a suit against Jackson County. See Baker v.
Putnal, 75 F.3d 190, 195 (5th Cir. 1996). Therefore, the
plaintiffs must demonstrate that their injuries were caused by
inadequate training procedures or policies adopted by the county
with deliberate indifference to public safety. See Benavides v.
County of Wilson, 955 F.2d 968, 972 (5th Cir. 1992). The
plaintiffs have failed to do so. The defendants put on evidence
that they had received proper training in accordance with
Mississippi law, and the plaintiffs failed to point to any facts
or evidence showing that such training was insufficient to deal
with the situations which the officers would regularly face. See
id. at 972-73.
The plaintiffs’ conclusionary statements that they will be
able to demonstrate deliberate indifference at trial are
insufficient to overcome the defendants’ motion for summary
judgment. See Lavespere v. Niagara Mach. & Tool Works, Inc., 910
F.2d 167, 178 (5th Cir. 1990). For the same reason, the
plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate that Sheriff Pope is
individually liable for failing to train or supervise the
officers properly. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s
judgment dismissing the § 1983 claims against Jackson County and
No. 99-60595
-3-
Sheriff Pope.
With respect to the plaintiffs’ state law claims, the
district court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction
over those claims. Although the district court addressed the
state claims on their merits out of an abundance of caution, the
district court’s memorandum opinion and final judgment make clear
that the dismissal was based on supplemental jurisdiction rather
than the merits. The plaintiffs, however, do not address whether
the district court abused its discretion in declining to exercise
jurisdiction. Rather, they ask this court to “place jurisdiction
back in the hands” of the district court. They then proceed to
address the merits of the state law claims “in the event” that
this court reinstates the state law claims, asserting no basis
for this court to review the district court’s refusal to exercise
supplemental jurisdiction.
The plaintiffs’ failure to brief the jurisdictional issue
constitutes an abandonment of that issue on appeal. See Cinel v.
Connick, 15 F.3d 1338, 1345 (5th Cir. 1994). Therefore, we do
not need to reach the merits of the state law claims; therefore,
we affirm the judgment of the district court declining to
exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims and
dismissing those claims without prejudice.
AFFIRMED.