Lay v. United States ( 2022 )

Case: 21-60776 Document: 00516327841 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/20/2022
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
May 20, 2022
No. 21-60776
Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Tiffany Lay; Robert Lay,
Plaintiffs—Appellants,
versus
United States of America,
Defendant—Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Mississippi
USDC No. 3:19-CV-188
Before Wiener, Dennis, and Haynes, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Tiffany and Robert Lay filed a lawsuit against the United States
pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) alleging that Tiffany Lay
suffered injury due to medical malpractice by employees of the G.V. (Sonny)
Montgomery Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Jackson,
*
Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Case: 21-60776 Document: 00516327841 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/20/2022
No. 21-60776
Mississippi, and that Robert Lay, her husband, suffered a loss of consortium
as a result. The district court held a four-day bench trial. The district court
informed the parties that it would not hear closing arguments but would
instead have each party submit supplemental proposed findings of fact and
conclusions of law after the trial, which both parties did. Ultimately, the
district court entered a 21-page memorandum opinion and order ruling in
favor of the United States.
On appeal, the Lays assert that the district court made two errors.
First, the Lays claim that the district court violated Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 52(a) by not providing record citations in its findings of fact
contained in its memorandum opinion. Second, the Lays claim that the
district court erred by not providing for closing arguments by the parties.
The Lays contend that these errors require vacatur and remand.
The Lays’ first argument lacks merit. Ruiz v. Estelle, 679 F.2d 1115,
1133 (5th Cir. 1982) (“However convenient it might be for counsel and the
appellate court to have ‘specific citations to the record’ . . . such citations are
not required.”), amended and vacated in part on other grounds, 688 F.2d 266(5th Cir. 1982); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(a) (containing no requirement
that district court include record citation in findings of fact). And the Lays
forfeited their second argument by not objecting to the lack of closing
argument before the district court. Horton v. Bank One, N.A., 387 F.3d 426,
435 (5th Cir. 2004). In any event, there was no error, because “[d]enying
closing arguments in a civil bench trial is within a district court’s discretion.”
Thomas v. New York Life Ins. Co., 161 F.3d 8 (5th Cir. 1998) (unpublished);
Peckham v. Fam. Loan Co., 262 F.2d 422, 425 (5th Cir. 1959). Nor have the
Lays attempted to demonstrate on appeal how any purported error affected
their substantial rights. Fed. R. Civ. P. 61.
Because the Lays have identified no reversible error, we AFFIRM.
2