Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Lopez v. Mack, 07-40610 (2008)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Number: 07-40610 Visitors: 35
Filed: Sep. 22, 2008
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED September 22, 2008 No. 07-40610 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk ARNULFO ANDRES LOPEZ Plaintiff-Appellant v. KENNETH MACK, Individually and in His Capacity as Chief of Police of the Galveston Police Department; GALVESTON POLICE DEPARTMENT; CITY OF GALVESTON; OFFICER CLAYTON POPE; OFFICER MATTHEW WHITING; SERGEANT JOEL CALDWELL; OFFICER ARCHIE CHAPMAN; UNKNOWN GALVESTON POLICE OFFICER, also
More
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED September 22, 2008 No. 07-40610 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk ARNULFO ANDRES LOPEZ Plaintiff-Appellant v. KENNETH MACK, Individually and in His Capacity as Chief of Police of the Galveston Police Department; GALVESTON POLICE DEPARTMENT; CITY OF GALVESTON; OFFICER CLAYTON POPE; OFFICER MATTHEW WHITING; SERGEANT JOEL CALDWELL; OFFICER ARCHIE CHAPMAN; UNKNOWN GALVESTON POLICE OFFICER, also known as Whitey Defendants-Appellees Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas 3:06-CV-371 Before GARZA and DENNIS, Circuit Judges, and MILLS,* District Judge. PER CURIAM:** Plaintiff-Appellant Arnulfo Andres Lopez (“Lopez”) appeals from a December 13, 2006, Memorandum Opinion and Order of the District Court and an April 11, 2007, Memorandum Opinion and Order of the District Court. * Chief Judge of the Northern District of Mississippi, sitting by designation. ** 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. No. 07-40610 Together, these orders granted summary judgment for Defendants-Appellees and dismissed all of Lopez’s federal law claims and all of Lopez’s state law claims except for one state law malicious prosecution claim, which the District Court remanded to state court. We have reviewed the briefs, the entire record on appeal, and the applicable law and have heard oral arguments of counsel. Finding no error in the District Court’s disposition of the case, we AFFIRM essentially for the reasons stated by the District Court in its written opinions. 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