eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 Federal Courts
 US Court of Appeals Cases
 Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
 2013-02

Kyide Tolbert v. James LeBlanc , 512 F. App'x 401 ( 2013 )


Menu:
 
  •      Case: 12-30644       Document: 00512144723         Page: 1     Date Filed: 02/15/2013
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT  United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
February 15, 2013
No. 12-30644
Summary Calendar                        Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
KYIDE TOLBERT,
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
JAMES M. LEBLANC; TONIA RACHAL; C.A. LOWE, JR.,,
Defendants-Appellees
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
USDC No. 1:11-CV-2034
Before DeMOSS, PRADO, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Kyide Tolbert, Louisiana prisoner # 306899, appeals the dismissal of his
    42 U.S.C. § 1983
     action for failure to state a claim. Tolbert contends that he
suffered damages due to a miscalculation of his sentence that failed to give him
two years of credit for an expired sentence for armed robbery. The error was
corrected before Tolbert filed this action.
Tolbert fails to address and thus abandons any challenge to the district
court’s reasons for dismissal. See Yohey v. Collins,
    985 F.2d 222
    , 225 (5th Cir.
*
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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.
Case: 12-30644     Document: 00512144723     Page: 2   Date Filed: 02/15/2013
No. 12-30644
1993) (issues not briefed are abandoned). And we need not consider Tolbert’s
double claims of jeopardy and the denial of procedural due process because he
raises them for the first time on appeal. See Stewart Glass & Mirror, Inc. v. U.S.
Auto Glass Discount Centers, Inc.,
    200 F.3d 307
    , 316-17 (5th Cir. 2000); Leverette
v. Louisville Ladder Co.,
    183 F.3d 339
    , 342 (5th Cir. 1999).
Thus, while Tolbert argues to excess about the entirely uncontested fact
that his sentence was temporarily miscalculated, he fails to allege any fact that
would establish that the error caused him any injury or deprivation of a
protected liberty interest. See Murray v. Earle,
    405 F. 3d 278
    , 290 (5th Cir.
2005) (noting that § 1983 requires a showing of proximate causation); Baldwin
v. Daniels,
    250 F.3d 943
    , 946 (5th Cir. 2001) (noting that a plaintiff must show
that the defendant’s action resulted in a deprivation of a protected interest).
Tolbert simply assumes that the error itself entitles him to damages. The
judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
2