Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

John Blanton v. J. Curtis, 17-10225 (2017)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Number: 17-10225 Visitors: 17
Filed: Sep. 11, 2017
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: Case: 17-10225 Document: 00514150492 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/11/2017 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 17-10225 FILED Summary Calendar September 11, 2017 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk JOHN BLANTON, Plaintiff - Appellant v. J. T. CURTIS, Dallas Police Officer Individually; MATTHEW SMITH, Dallas Police Officer Individually; RICHARD MARTINEZ, Dallas Police Officer Individually; KELLY WHITE, Dallas Police Officer Individually; JOSE GUZM
More
Case: 17-10225 Document: 00514150492 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/11/2017 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 17-10225 FILED Summary Calendar September 11, 2017 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk JOHN BLANTON, Plaintiff - Appellant v. J. T. CURTIS, Dallas Police Officer Individually; MATTHEW SMITH, Dallas Police Officer Individually; RICHARD MARTINEZ, Dallas Police Officer Individually; KELLY WHITE, Dallas Police Officer Individually; JOSE GUZMAN, Dallas Police Officer Individually; SEVERAL UNKNOWN DALLAS POLICE OFFICERS, Individually; VARIOUS UNKNOWN FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS, Whose Identities and Agencies are Unknown; Individually, Defendants - Appellees Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:14-CV-1030 Before REAVLEY, PRADO, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. Case: 17-10225 Document: 00514150492 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/11/2017 No. 17-10225 The judgment of the district court is affirmed for the reasons given by the judge’s order dated October 27, 2016. The defendants have given evidence to justify the damage done to the house and warrant their legal defense in exercise of qualified immunity. The plaintiff argues that as non-movant, he should be favored by material conflicts of the evidence. However, there is no disputed issue of fact in this case. The judgment is correct. AFFIRMED. 2
Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer