Filed: Nov. 05, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 96-40336 Conference Calendar ARNOLD AYALA, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus SHEILA R. ALFORD ET AL., Defendants, MICHAEL J. MCCAULEY, Defendant-Appellee. - - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 6:94-CV-172 - - - - - - - - - - October 23, 1996 Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and HIGGINBOTHAM, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Arnold Ayala, #440313, filed a pro se, in for
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 96-40336 Conference Calendar ARNOLD AYALA, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus SHEILA R. ALFORD ET AL., Defendants, MICHAEL J. MCCAULEY, Defendant-Appellee. - - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 6:94-CV-172 - - - - - - - - - - October 23, 1996 Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and HIGGINBOTHAM, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Arnold Ayala, #440313, filed a pro se, in form..
More
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-40336
Conference Calendar
ARNOLD AYALA,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
SHEILA R. ALFORD ET AL.,
Defendants,
MICHAEL J. MCCAULEY,
Defendant-Appellee.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 6:94-CV-172
- - - - - - - - - -
October 23, 1996
Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and HIGGINBOTHAM, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Arnold Ayala, #440313, filed a pro se, in forma pauperis
complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that excessive force
had been used against him by corrections officers. Following a
bench trial, the magistrate judge concluded that the use of force
*
Pursuant to Local 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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 Local Rule
47.5.4.
No. 96-40336
- 2 -
was appropriate and dismissed Ayala’s complaint with prejudice.
If the factfinder's account of the evidence is plausible,
this court may not reverse it; if two views of the evidence are
permissible, "the factfinder's choice between them cannot be
clearly erroneous." Anderson v. City of Bessemer City,
470 U.S.
564, 573-74 (1985). This court will not disturb credibility
determinations on appeal. See Williams v. Fab-Con, Inc.,
990
F.2d 228, 230 (5th Cir. 1993) (this court defers to the district
court if factual determinations are based upon credibility
determinations). Ayala has not demonstrated that the magistrate
judge’s findings of fact were clearly erroneous. See Odom v.
Frank,
3 F.3d 839, 843 (5th Cir. 1993). The magistrate judge did
not err by dismissing Ayala’s complaint.
AFFIRMED.