Filed: Apr. 09, 2004
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit F I L E D April 9, 2004 In the Charles R. Fulbruge III United States Court of Appeals Clerk for the Fifth Circuit _ m 03-60191 _ LEROY MITCHELL, JR., Plaintiff-Appellee, VERSUS CITY OF GULFPORT, MISSISSIPPI, ET AL., Defendants, CITY OF GULFPORT, MISSISSIPPI; MARK PEDUZZI; TODD WALLIS, Defendants-Appellants. _ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi m 1:01-CV-449-GR _ Before GARWOOD, HIGGINBOTHAM, and SMIT
Summary: United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit F I L E D April 9, 2004 In the Charles R. Fulbruge III United States Court of Appeals Clerk for the Fifth Circuit _ m 03-60191 _ LEROY MITCHELL, JR., Plaintiff-Appellee, VERSUS CITY OF GULFPORT, MISSISSIPPI, ET AL., Defendants, CITY OF GULFPORT, MISSISSIPPI; MARK PEDUZZI; TODD WALLIS, Defendants-Appellants. _ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi m 1:01-CV-449-GR _ Before GARWOOD, HIGGINBOTHAM, and SMITH..
More
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
April 9, 2004
In the
Charles R. Fulbruge III
United States Court of Appeals Clerk
for the Fifth Circuit
_______________
m 03-60191
_______________
LEROY MITCHELL, JR.,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
VERSUS
CITY OF GULFPORT, MISSISSIPPI, ET AL.,
Defendants,
CITY OF GULFPORT, MISSISSIPPI; MARK PEDUZZI; TODD WALLIS,
Defendants-Appellants.
_________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Mississippi
m 1:01-CV-449-GR
_________________________
Before GARWOOD, HIGGINBOTHAM, and
SMITH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
The district court did not abuse its
discretion in considering the transcript of the
criminal proceeding, which transcript bears
sufficient indicia of reliability. In light of that
transcript, the district court determined that
there are genuine issues of disputed material
fact. Accordingly, we have no jurisdiction to
review the claim of excessive force. Johnson
v. Jones,
515 U.S. 304, 317 (1995).
The appeal is DISMISSED for want of jur-
isdiction. Appellants’ motion to supplement
the record is GRANTED. We express no
opinion on the merits of any claim.
*
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determined that this opinion should not be published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 circum-
stances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
2