Filed: Mar. 03, 1998
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS For the Fifth Circuit No. 97-50035 Summary Calendar ISIDRO MARTINEZ RAMIREZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, VERSUS FRANK TURRIGLIO, Corporal; R. SAENZ, Defendants-Appellees. Appeals from the United States District Court For the Western District of Texas (SA-96-CV-107) February 23, 1998 Before WISDOM, DUHÉ, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Isidro Martinez Ramirez, a Texas state prisoner, filed suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against two detention officers whom he alleg
Summary: UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS For the Fifth Circuit No. 97-50035 Summary Calendar ISIDRO MARTINEZ RAMIREZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, VERSUS FRANK TURRIGLIO, Corporal; R. SAENZ, Defendants-Appellees. Appeals from the United States District Court For the Western District of Texas (SA-96-CV-107) February 23, 1998 Before WISDOM, DUHÉ, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Isidro Martinez Ramirez, a Texas state prisoner, filed suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against two detention officers whom he allege..
More
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
For the Fifth Circuit
No. 97-50035
Summary Calendar
ISIDRO MARTINEZ RAMIREZ,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
VERSUS
FRANK TURRIGLIO, Corporal; R. SAENZ,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeals from the United States District Court
For the Western District of Texas
(SA-96-CV-107)
February 23, 1998
Before WISDOM, DUHÉ, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Isidro Martinez Ramirez, a Texas state prisoner, filed suit
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against two detention officers whom he
alleges subjected him to excessive force in violation of his
constitutional rights. The jury concluded that the defendants had
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
not used excessive force, and that Ramirez’s suit was frivolous.2
On appeal, Ramirez raises the following assignments of error:
(1) the magistrate judge admitted prejudicial evidence, (2) defense
counsel engaged in improper cross-examination, and (3) the verdict
resulted from defense counsel’s improper closing argument.
We have considered these points carefully. We find that the
district court did not commit error, plain or otherwise.
Furthermore, Ramirez has failed to make the requisite showing that
his substantial rights were affected.3
AFFIRMED.
2
The jury answered in the affirmative to a special
interrogatory that asked: “Do you find that all of the plaintiff’s
claims in this case are frivolous, unreasonable, or groundless, or
that the plaintiff continued to litigate after they clearly became
so?”
3
FDIC v. Mijalis,
15 F.3d 1314, 1318-19 (5th Cir. 1994).
2