Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed April 20, 2006.
In The
Fourteenth Court of Appeals
____________
NO. 14-05-00963-CV
____________
BASILIO ANGULO-PEREZ, Appellant
V.
THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS MEDICAL BRANCH, Appellee
On Appeal from the 10th District Court
Galveston County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 03CV0977
M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N
Basilio Angulo-Perez, an inmate, filed suit against the University of Texas Medical Branch (UTMB) for medical malpractice and negligence. UTMB filed a plea to the jurisdiction on two grounds: (1) appellant=s pleadings failed to state a claim under the Texas Tort Claims Act=s (the Act) limited waiver of sovereign immunity, and (2) appellant failed to provide written notice within six months, as required by the Act. The trial court sustained the plea.
On appeal, appellant does not address either of these grounds for granting the plea to the jurisdiction. Rather, appellant claims UTMB=s immunity does not extend to a commercial contract with the federal government to treat prisoners in federal custody.
The State does not waive immunity from suit simply by contracting with another entity. See General Serv. Comm. v. Little-Tex Insulation Co., Inc, 39 S.W.3d 591, 594 (Tex. 2001). There must still be legislative consent to sue. Id. Appellant still had the burden to establish immunity had been waived. See id.
When a trial court sustains a plea to the jurisdiction without specifying grounds, appellant must challenge each ground asserted in the plea. See Britton v. Texas Department of Criminal Justice, 95 S.W.3d 676, 681 (Tex. App.CHouston [1st Dist.] 2002, no pet.). See also Fox v. Maguire, 2005 WL 1791586, *2 (Tex. App.CEl Paso 2005, pet. denied) (not yet released for publication); Fox v. Wardy, 2005 WL 1791589, *2 (Tex. App.CEl Paso 2005, pet. denied) (not yet released for publication); and Service Employment Redevelopment v. Fort Worth Independent School Dist., 163 S.W.3d 142, 147 (Tex. App.CFort Worth 2005, pet. filed). Appellant has not challenged either of the jurisdictional plea=s grounds. Accordingly, we overrule appellant=s issue and affirm the trial court=s judgment.
PER CURIAM
Judgment rendered and Memorandum Opinion filed April 20, 2006.
Panel consists of Justices Hudson, Fowler, and Seymore.