Filed: Jul. 11, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 95-20330 Summary Calendar JIMMY RAY BRITTON, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus JOHNNY J. KLEVENHAGEN; JOHN DOE, #1 Medical Doctor, Defendants, and HARRIS COUNTY TEXAS; ZAE ZEON, Dr.; MARK KELLER, Defendants-Appellees. - - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. H-90-CV-2213 - - - - - - - - - - June 1, 1996 Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Jimm
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 95-20330 Summary Calendar JIMMY RAY BRITTON, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus JOHNNY J. KLEVENHAGEN; JOHN DOE, #1 Medical Doctor, Defendants, and HARRIS COUNTY TEXAS; ZAE ZEON, Dr.; MARK KELLER, Defendants-Appellees. - - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. H-90-CV-2213 - - - - - - - - - - June 1, 1996 Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Jimmy..
More
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 95-20330 Summary Calendar JIMMY RAY BRITTON, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus JOHNNY J. KLEVENHAGEN; JOHN DOE, #1 Medical Doctor, Defendants, and HARRIS COUNTY TEXAS; ZAE ZEON, Dr.; MARK KELLER, Defendants-Appellees. - - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. H-90-CV-2213 - - - - - - - - - - June 1, 1996 Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Jimmy Ray Britton appeals the district court’s judgment in favor of the Defendants following a bench trial of his civil * Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4. No. 95-20330 - 2 - rights suit. We have reviewed the record, the district court’s statement of reasons, and the contentions of the parties, and we find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for essentially the same reasons stated by the district court. Britton v. Klevenhagen, No. H:90-CV-2213 (S.D. Tex. April 6, 1995). The Appelees’ motion to supplement the record is DENIED. JUDGMENT AFFIRMED; MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT DENIED.
