Filed: Jul. 12, 2000
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 99-11265 Summary Calendar GEORGE V. FULLER, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus NFN SPRAGINS, Officer; NFN GAY, Officer Defendants-Appellees. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 7:98-CV-215-R - July 10, 2000 Before JOLLY, DAVIS and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* George V. Fuller, pro se Texas prisoner # 773463, appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment in fav
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 99-11265 Summary Calendar GEORGE V. FULLER, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus NFN SPRAGINS, Officer; NFN GAY, Officer Defendants-Appellees. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 7:98-CV-215-R - July 10, 2000 Before JOLLY, DAVIS and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* George V. Fuller, pro se Texas prisoner # 773463, appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favo..
More
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-11265
Summary Calendar
GEORGE V. FULLER,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
NFN SPRAGINS, Officer; NFN GAY, Officer
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 7:98-CV-215-R
--------------------
July 10, 2000
Before JOLLY, DAVIS and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
George V. Fuller, pro se Texas prisoner # 773463, appeals
the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of
Officers John Spragins and Christopher Gay. The district court
determined that Spragins and Gay did not wrongfully arrest Fuller
nor did they use excessive force during the arrest.
We note that Fuller’s claim is that he was illegally stopped
and searched, not solely that he was wrongfully arrested. In any
event, these claims are barred under Heck v. Humphrey,
512 U.S.
477, 486-87 (1994), as any challenge to the legality of the
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 99-11265
-2-
investigatory stop and frisk would necessarily implicate the
validity of Fuller’s conviction for evading arrest, as a lawful
detention is a necessary element of the crime of evading arrest.
See TEX. PENAL CODE § 28.04.
Fuller’s excessive force claim also fails because the
unrebutted summary judgment evidence demonstrates that only
minimal force was used and that the officers did not hit or kick
Fuller as he claims. See Spann v. Rainey,
987 F.2d 1110, 1115
(5th Cir. 1993). Fuller put on no evidence that any force used
was excessive to the need or that it was objectively
unreasonable. See
id. Fuller’s unsworn allegations are
insufficient to overcome the affidavits and other evidence
offered by the officers. See King v. Dogan,
31 F.3d 344, 346
(5th Cir. 1994).
Fuller raises a number of arguments relating to the district
court’s denial of his motions seeking to compel discovery and the
release of medical records. He also contends that contrary to
the district court’s opinion, he filed a document opposing the
summary judgment motion. However, Fuller does not cite any
authority supporting his claim that the district court erred in
denying his requests, nor does he provide any evidence that he in
fact filed an opposition. Further, even if the requested
discovery responses had been provided, Fuller has not shown that
the responses would have rebutted the officers’ sworn testimony
as to either of his claims. Accordingly, Fuller’s contentions
are without merit.
AFFIRMED.