Kimble v. Lopinto

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
• Decided: December 8, 2022
• Docket: 20-30524
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Case: 20-30524 Document: 00516571600 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/08/2022

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit

FILED December 8, 2022 No. 20-30524 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk

Raymond Harold Kimble, III,

Plaintiff—Appellant,

versus

Joseph P. Lopinto, III, Sheriff; Jefferson Parish Correctional Center; Sue Ellen Monfra, Deputy Chief; John Fitzpatrick, Legal Advisor; Edward Olsen, Major; B. Bordelon, Captain, Assistant Deputy Administrator, et al

Defendants—Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana USDC No: 2:19-cv-13078

Before Higginbotham, Duncan, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam:* Appellant Raymond Harold Kimble, III is a pretrial detainee housed in the Jefferson Parish Correctional Center. Kimble challenges the district court’s order adopting the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation,

* This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. Case: 20-30524 Document: 00516571600 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/08/2022

No. 20-30524

which, following our court’s existing precedent, 1 dismissed his equal- protection and due-process claims as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1). “The standard of review is de novo for a claim dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), which allows a district court to dismiss an in forma pauperis prisoner’s civil right claim sua sponte if the complaint is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.” Carlucci v. Chapa, 884 F.3d 534, 537 (5th Cir. 2018) (citing Green v. Atkinson, 623 F.3d 278, 280 (5th Cir. 2010)). We have heard oral argument and have reviewed the applicable law, pertinent parts of the record, including the transcript of the magistrate judge’s Spears 2 hearing, and the briefs. Finding no reversible error, we AFFIRM, essentially for the reasons convincingly set forth by the magistrate judge. See 5TH CIR. R. 47.6.

1 See, e.g., Longoria v. Dretke, 507 F.3d 898 (5th Cir. 2007) (per curiam); Hill v. Estelle, 537 F.2d 214 (5th Cir. 1976). 2 Spears v. McCotter, 766 F.2d 179 (5th Cir. 1985).