Jeremy Stockstill v. City of Picayune, 16-60103 (2016)
Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Number: 16-60103
Visitors: 21
Filed: Sep. 29, 2016
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: Case: 16-60103 Document: 00513698706 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/29/2016 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 16-60103 United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED JEREMY STOCKSTILL, September 29, 2016 Lyle W. Cayce Plaintiff - Appellant Clerk v. CITY OF PICAYUNE; BRYAN DAWSEY, in his official capacity as Chief of Police for City of Picayune Police Department; CHAD PRESTRIDGE, individually and in his official capacity as Patrol Officer for the City of Picayune Police
Summary: Case: 16-60103 Document: 00513698706 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/29/2016 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 16-60103 United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED JEREMY STOCKSTILL, September 29, 2016 Lyle W. Cayce Plaintiff - Appellant Clerk v. CITY OF PICAYUNE; BRYAN DAWSEY, in his official capacity as Chief of Police for City of Picayune Police Department; CHAD PRESTRIDGE, individually and in his official capacity as Patrol Officer for the City of Picayune Police D..
More
Case: 16-60103 Document: 00513698706 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/29/2016 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 16-60103 United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED JEREMY STOCKSTILL, September 29, 2016 Lyle W. Cayce Plaintiff - Appellant Clerk v. CITY OF PICAYUNE; BRYAN DAWSEY, in his official capacity as Chief of Police for City of Picayune Police Department; CHAD PRESTRIDGE, individually and in his official capacity as Patrol Officer for the City of Picayune Police Department, Defendants - Appellees Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi USDC No. 1:16-CV-4 Before REAVLEY, DAVIS, and JONES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* The court has carefully considered this appeal in light of the briefs, excellent oral arguments and pertinent portions of the record. Having done so, we find no reversible error of law or fact and affirm essentially for the reasons stated in the district court's comprehensive oral findings and conclusions. * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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.
Source: CourtListener
