Filed: Oct. 01, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 98-10820 Summary Calendar GREG PARKS, none, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus CITY OF ABILENE, TEXAS; MELVIN MARTIN, Police Chief, Defendants-Appellees. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 1:97-CV-143 - September 30, 1999 Before REAVLEY, BARKSDALE and STEWART, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Greg Parks (“Parks”) appeals the district court’s decision to grant summary judgment in favor of
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 98-10820 Summary Calendar GREG PARKS, none, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus CITY OF ABILENE, TEXAS; MELVIN MARTIN, Police Chief, Defendants-Appellees. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 1:97-CV-143 - September 30, 1999 Before REAVLEY, BARKSDALE and STEWART, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Greg Parks (“Parks”) appeals the district court’s decision to grant summary judgment in favor of t..
More
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 98-10820
Summary Calendar
GREG PARKS, none,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
CITY OF ABILENE, TEXAS;
MELVIN MARTIN, Police Chief,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 1:97-CV-143
--------------------
September 30, 1999
Before REAVLEY, BARKSDALE and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Greg Parks (“Parks”) appeals the district court’s decision
to grant summary judgment in favor of the City of Abilene and
Melvin Martin (collectively, “Appellees”). We have reviewed the
briefs and the record. First, we conclude that Parks has failed
to demonstrate plain error with regards to the procedural due
process claims that he has asserted for the first time on appeal.
See Robertson v. Plano City of Texas,
70 F.3d 21, 23 (5th Cir.
1995). Second, we conclude that granting summary judgment in
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
No. 98-10820
-2-
favor of Appellees with respect to Parks’ First Amendment claim
was correct for essentially the same reasons set forth by the
district court. See Parks v. City of Abilene, No. 1:97-CV-143-C
(N.D. Tex. June 11, 1998).
AFFIRMED.