United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT August 5, 2005
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 04-30416
Summary Calendar
ANNIE LAURA THOMPSON,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
HARRY LEE; Etc.; ET AL.,
Defendants,
HARRY LEE, Sheriff, both individually and in his official
capacity as Sheriff of Jefferson Parish; FRANZ ZIBILICH, both
individually and as counsel for Harry Lee, Sheriff of Jefferson
Parish; DAVID ZAREK,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana
USDC No. 01-CV-2740-B
--------------------
Before SMITH, STEWART, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Annie Laura Thompson appeals the district court’s dismissal
of her Federal Tort Claims Act complaint on grounds of res
judicata, collateral estoppel, and untimeliness. She argues that
the district court erred by dismissing the complaint without
notice and without giving her an opportunity to file an amended
complaint; that principles of res judicata and collateral
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 04-30416
-2-
estoppel do not apply because her claims were not resolved on the
merits in prior litigation; that her claims against defendant
Zarek were timely and, alternatively, that the limitations period
contained in 28 U.S.C. § 2401(b) should equitably tolled as to
those claims; that the district court should have recused itself
from the case; that the district court held Thompson, a pro se
litigant, to unreasonably stringent standards; and that the
district court erred by construing her motion for reconsideration
as sounding under FED. R. CIV. P. 60(b) and by denying relief.
The district court dismissed Thompson’s complaint without
prejudice. As the factual allegations and legal argument that
Thompson raises on appeal are identical to the claims that she
raised in the district court, we conclude that the lack of notice
and a chance to amend prior to dismissal were harmless. Bazrowx
v. Scott, 136 F.3d 1053, 1054 (5th Cir. 1998). By failing to
brief the issues, Thompson has abandoned her other challenges to
the procedures employed by the district court. Brinkmann v.
Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir.
1987).
We agree with the district court that Thompson’s claims
against defendants Zarek, Lee, Zibilich, Smith and Yates are
barred by principles of res judicata and collateral estoppel.
Mowbray v. Cameron County, Texas, 274 F.3d 269, 281 (5th Cir.
2001), cert. denied, 535 U.S. 1055 (2002); Stripling v. Jordan
Prod. Co., L.L.C., 234 F.3d 863, 868 (5th Cir. 2000). Likewise,
No. 04-30416
-3-
we find no error in the district court’s determination that
Thompson’s claims under Federal Tort Claims Act against defendant
Zarek are untimely and that Thompson is not entitled to equitable
tolling of the applicable limitations period. See Ramming v.
United States, 281 F.3d 158, 162 (5th Cir. 2001). The denial of
Thompson’s motions for recusal was entirely within the discretion
of the district court. United States v. MMR Corp., 954 F.2d
1040, 1045-46 (5th Cir. 1992). Thompson’s conclusional assertion
that the district court held her to an impermissibly high
standard for a pro se litigant does not warrant relief. We find
no error in the district court’s analysis of Thompson’s motion
for reconsideration, filed more than ten days after entry of
judgment, as sounding under FED. R. CIV. P. 60(b).
AFFIRMED.