IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-30103
Summary Calendar
JERRY L. ROBINETT,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
DELGADO COMMUNITY COLLEGE; LOUISIANA COMMUNITY AND TECHNICAL
COLLEGE SYSTEM; UNIVERSITY OF LOUISIANA SYSTEM,
Defendants-Appellees.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana
USDC No. 99-CV-2545-T
- - - - - - - - - -
August 31, 2001
Before JOLLY, BENAVIDES and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Jerry L. Robinett appeals from the district court’s grant of
summary judgment for the defendants. He argues that: (1) Delgado
Community College’s policy for the 1994-1995 school year
regarding satisfactory academic progress violated federal law;
(2) he had a property right in the receipt of federal Pell Grant
benefits; (3) he was not given adequate process when such
benefits were denied to him; (4) the district court erred by
assuming that unnamed state employees, whom Robinett sought to
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 01-30103
-2-
add to his complaint, were being sued only in their official
capacities; (5) the district court erred by holding that he
failed to cite sufficient evidence for his conspiracy claim;
(6) his conspiracy claim was not prescribed; and (7) the district
court erred by holding that his motion to supplement was dilatory
or futile. Although Robinett indicated on his notice of appeal
that he sought to appeal the denial of his FED. R. CIV. P. 59(e)
motion, he has abandoned such issue by failing to challenge the
denial on appeal. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 223-24
(5th Cir. 1993). Similarly, because he has failed to challenge
the district court’s holdings that the named defendants are
immune from the instant lawsuit and that his 42 U.S.C. § 1983
claims based on incidents from the 1994-1995 school year were
prescribed, he has abandoned such issues on appeal. See id.
This court reviews a grant of summary judgment de novo. See
Green v. Touro Infirmary, 992 F.2d 537, 538 (5th Cir. 1993).
Summary judgment is appropriate when, considering all of the
admissible evidence and drawing all reasonable inferences in the
light most favorable to the nonmoving party, there is no genuine
issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to
judgment as a matter of law. See FED. R. CIV. P. 56(c); Little v.
Liquid Air Corp., 37 F.3d 1069, 1075 (5th Cir. 1994)(en banc).
As Robinett has failed to establish that he a
constitutionally-protected right in the receipt of federal Pell
Grant benefits, he has failed to establish a due process claim.
See Bryan v. City of Madison, Miss., 213 F.3d 267, 274-75 (5th
Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 121 S. Ct. 1081 (2001). Furthermore,
No. 01-30103
-3-
he failed to provide sufficient evidentiary support to show the
existence of a conspiracy or that such conspiracy affected his
constitutional rights.
Accordingly, the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.