IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-50142
Summary Calendar
OSCAR MARTINEZ, as next friend for Melissa Martinez,
a minor; BLASA MARTINEZ, as next friend for Melissa
Martinez, a minor,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
versus
CRYSTAL CITY INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT; ET AL,
Defendants,
CRYSTAL CITY INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT,
RODOLFO ESPINOSA, JANIE RAMIREZ,
JOSE GILBERTO RAMIREZ,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. DR-97-CV-83-1
--------------------
February 23, 2001
Before DAVIS, JONES and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Plaintiffs Oscar and Blasa Martinez, as next friends for
their minor daughter Melissa (hereinafter "plaintiffs"), appeal
from the district court's dismissal of certain official capacity
claims and its grant of summary judgment to defendants Espinosa
and Crystal City Independent School District ("CCISD") in this 42
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 00-50142
-2-
U.S.C. § 1983 suit arising from an improper relationship between
Melissa and Jose Gilberto Ramirez, her teacher. After a de novo
review of the record, we affirm.
The plaintiffs first argue that the district court erred by
dismissing sua sponte the official capacity claims against Jose
Gilberto Ramirez as redundant of claims against the school
district. The plaintiffs did not mention in their notice of
appeal the district court's adoption of the magistrate judge's
recommendation to dismiss these claims, nor did they argue this
issue in their motion for reconsideration. Even though notices
of appeal are to be liberally construed, appellate jurisdiction
appears lacking over this issue. See Fed. R. App. P. 3(c);
Capital Parks, Inc. v. Southeastern Adver. and Sales Sys., Inc.,
30 F.3d 627, 630 (5th Cir. 1994); Lockett v. Anderson, 230 F.3d
695, 700 (5th Cir. 2000). Further, because the plaintiffs did
not object to the magistrate judge's recommendation, our review
would be limited to plain error, and we do not find such error
here. See Douglass v. United Services Automobile Ass'n, 79 F.3d
1415, 1430 (5th Cir. 1996)(en banc); Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S.
159, 165 (1985).
Plaintiffs next argue that the district court erred in
dismissing the official capacity claims against Janie Ramirez.
Because plaintiffs raised this claim in their motion for
reconsideration and noticed that decision in their notice of
appeal, we liberally construe the notice of appeal to find
appellate jurisdiction. Nevertheless, we find no plain error in
the district court's adoption of the magistrate judge's
No. 00-50142
-3-
recommendation to dismiss these claims. Douglass, 79 F.3d at
1430; Graham, 473 U.S. at 165.
Plaintiffs next argue that the district court erred in
granting summary judgment to Espinosa based on qualified immunity
because his conduct was deliberately indifferent. We find that
Espinosa's conduct, although possibly ineffective, did not rise
to the level of deliberate indifference toward Melissa's
constitutional rights. See Doe v. Taylor Indep. Sch. Dist., 15
F.3d 443, 457-58 (5th Cir. 1994)(en banc).
Finally, plaintiffs argue that the district court erred in
granting summary judgment to CCISD because of a widespread
practice of permitting male teachers to engage in inappropriate
conduct with female students. Under Texas law, the school
district board of trustees is responsible for making district
policy. See Gonzalez v. Ysleta Indep. Sch. Dist., 996 F.2d 745,
752 (5th Cir. 1993). After a careful review of the summary
judgment evidence, we find that plaintiffs have failed to show a
widespread pattern of improper conduct that was known or
tolerated by the public officials responsible for policymaking in
the school district. See Bennett v. City of Slidell, 728 F.2d
762, 768 (5th Cir. 1984)(en banc); Webster v. City of Houston,
735 F.2d 838, 841 (5th Cir. 1984).
Plaintiffs have failed to brief their state law claims
against CCISD or Espinosa. Accordingly, those claims are deemed
abandoned. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 225 (5th Cir.
1993).
AFFIRMED.