Stevon Archie v. James Leblanc

PER CURIAM: * Stevon Archie, Louisiana prisoner # 439157, appeals following the dismissal of his civil action against James LeBlanc, the Secretary of the Louisiana Department of Corrections. Archie originally sued Le-Blanc and Pat Book, Warden, Catahoula Corrections Center, in state court. 1 Book removed the action with the consent of LeBlanc. The district court then dismissed Book based upon discovery violations; we dismissed Archie’s appeal of that order as frivolous. Archie v. LeBlanc, 366 Fed.Appx. 558 (5th Cir.2010). The case remanded pending in the district court against LeBlanc who moved to dismiss claiming qualified immunity, failure to allege a claim upon which relief could be granted, and failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The district court granted the motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. The district court also denied the original motion to remand (styled as an “opposition to petition for removal” but treated as a motion to remand) Archie had filed at the outset of the case, reasoning that LeBlanc had consented to federal jurisdiction by filing a consent to the removal. On appeal, Archie challenges only the decision that the district court had jurisdiction over LeBlanc. He does not address the conclusion that he failed to state a claim, so we conclude that issue is abandoned. Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 225-26 (5th Cir.1993). We review the denial of a motion to remand to state court de novo. City of Clarksdale v. BellSouth *592 Telecomms., Inc., 428 F.3d 206, 210 (5th Cir.2005). Archie has not addressed the basis for the district court’s conclusion that it had jurisdiction or otherwise demonstrated error in the denial of his motion to remand. See Meyers v. Texas, 410 F.3d 236 (5th Cir.2005)(holding that voluntary invocation of the federal court’s jurisdiction through the removal process waives Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit in federal courts). The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. Footnotes [*] Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4. [1] Archie also sued "Jane Doe and John Doe,” but he does not appeal the district court's dismissal of the claims against them.