Pamela Connery v. John Norsworthy

Fifth Circuit

Pamela Connery v. John Norsworthy

565 F. App'x 309

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedApril 25, 2014

Docket12-20658

StatusUnpublished

This text of 565 F. App'x 309 (Pamela Connery v. John Norsworthy) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Pamela Connery v. John Norsworthy, 565 F. App'x 309 (5th Cir. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM: *

Pamela J. Connery-Hazelwood appeals the judgment of the district court dismissing her state law claims against John L. Norsworthy for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Because she does not address the district court’s determination that it lacked diversity, supplemental, or federal question jurisdiction over the claims, she has abandoned any challenge to the jurisdictional ruling. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir.1993); Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir.1987); FED. R. APP. P. 28(a)(9)(A).

To the extent Connery-Hazelwood seeks to challenge the district court’s sua sponte dismissal of her copyright claim against Norsworthy, we previously affirmed that decision. Real Estate Innovations, Inc. v. Houston Assoc. of Realtors, Inc., 422 F. App’x 344, 351-52 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 132 S.Ct. 249, 181 L.Ed.2d 143 (2011). Our determination that the dismissal was proper is law of the case. See United States v. Matthews, 312 F.3d 652, 657 (5th Cir.2002). Although Connery-Hazelwood contends that Nor-sworthy was not a party to the case at the time because the district court administratively closed the case in June 2008 due to the automatic stay in a bankruptcy case filed by Norsworthy, her argument is not supported by the record or the law. The automatic stay lifted in August 2008 when the bankruptcy court granted a discharge, see 11 U.S.C. § 362(c)(2), and the district court had the authority to reinstate the case against Norsworthy on its own motion. See Mire v. Full Spectrum Lending, Inc., 389 F.3d 163, 167 (5th Cir.2004). More than a year after the bankruptcy stay was lifted, the district court expressly dismissed the copyright claim against Nor-sworthy.

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

*

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.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM: *

Pamela J. Connery-Hazelwood appeals the judgment of the district court dismissing her state law claims against John L. Norsworthy for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Because she does not address the district court’s determination that it lacked diversity, supplemental, or federal question jurisdiction over the claims, she has abandoned any challenge to the jurisdictional ruling. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir.1993); Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir.1987); FED. R. APP. P. 28(a)(9)(A).

To the extent Connery-Hazelwood seeks to challenge the district court’s sua sponte dismissal of her copyright claim against Norsworthy, we previously affirmed that decision. Real Estate Innovations, Inc. v. Houston Assoc. of Realtors, Inc., 422 F. App’x 344, 351-52 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 132 S.Ct. 249, 181 L.Ed.2d 143 (2011). Our determination that the dismissal was proper is law of the case. See United States v. Matthews, 312 F.3d 652, 657 (5th Cir.2002). Although Connery-Hazelwood contends that Nor-sworthy was not a party to the case at the time because the district court administratively closed the case in June 2008 due to the automatic stay in a bankruptcy case filed by Norsworthy, her argument is not supported by the record or the law. The automatic stay lifted in August 2008 when the bankruptcy court granted a discharge, see 11 U.S.C. § 362(c)(2), and the district court had the authority to reinstate the case against Norsworthy on its own motion. See Mire v. Full Spectrum Lending, Inc., 389 F.3d 163, 167 (5th Cir.2004). More than a year after the bankruptcy stay was lifted, the district court expressly dismissed the copyright claim against Nor-sworthy.

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

*

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

565 F. App'x 309, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pamela-connery-v-john-norsworthy-ca5-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack