Filed: May 06, 2002
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 01-50988 Summary Calendar ROBERT F. RULE; CHERIE RULE, Plaintiffs-Appellees, versus RALPH LOPEZ, Etc; ET AL, Defendants, MIKE CARRILLO, Bexar County Deputy Sheriff in his individual capacity; DENNIS DOUGLAS, Bexar County Deputy Sheriff in his individual capacity, Defendants-Appellants. Appeal from the United States District Court For the Western District of Texas USDC No. SA-00-CV-847 May 3, 2002 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER, and BAR
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 01-50988 Summary Calendar ROBERT F. RULE; CHERIE RULE, Plaintiffs-Appellees, versus RALPH LOPEZ, Etc; ET AL, Defendants, MIKE CARRILLO, Bexar County Deputy Sheriff in his individual capacity; DENNIS DOUGLAS, Bexar County Deputy Sheriff in his individual capacity, Defendants-Appellants. Appeal from the United States District Court For the Western District of Texas USDC No. SA-00-CV-847 May 3, 2002 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER, and BARK..
More
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-50988
Summary Calendar
ROBERT F. RULE; CHERIE RULE,
Plaintiffs-Appellees,
versus
RALPH LOPEZ, Etc; ET AL,
Defendants,
MIKE CARRILLO, Bexar County Deputy Sheriff in his individual
capacity; DENNIS DOUGLAS, Bexar County Deputy Sheriff in his
individual capacity,
Defendants-Appellants.
Appeal from the United States District Court
For the Western District of Texas
USDC No. SA-00-CV-847
May 3, 2002
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Bexar County Deputy Sheriffs Mike Carillo and Dennis Douglas
appeal the district court’s denial of their motion for summary
judgment on qualified immunity grounds in this § 1983 case based on
*
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should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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.
alleged violations of the Fourth Amendment through the use of
excessive force resulting from a warrantless entry. We notice the
issue of our jurisdiction sua sponte and dismiss the appeal.
We have no appellate jurisdiction to determine whether there
is a genuine issue of fact, but only whether those issues of fact
are material, that is whether, after reviewing the complaint and
record,1 “assuming that all of [the plaintiffs’] factual assertions
are true, those facts are materially sufficient to establish that
defendants acted in an objectively unreasonable manner.”2 We have
reviewed the plaintiffs’ complaint and the summary judgment record
and conclude that, taking all of the plaintiffs’ allegations as
true, the issues of fact found by the district court are material
and we are without jurisdiction.
DISMISSED.
1
Chiu v. Plano Independent Sch. Dist.,
260 F.3d 330, 341 (5th Cir. 2001).
2
Wagner v. Bay City,
227 F.3d 316, 320 (5th Cir. 2000).
2