Der KI-Arbeitsbereich für Juristen
- Rechtsrecherche mit Zugriff auf über 1 Million Quellen
- Dokumentenautomatisierung
- Mandatsverwaltung
- Gehostet in der EU und der Schweiz
14 Tage kostenlos testen (10 Fragen/Tag während der Testphase)
Der KI-Arbeitsbereich für Juristen
14 Tage kostenlos testen (10 Fragen/Tag während der Testphase)
02-11098•Caldwell v. Dallas County, et al
02-11098Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit11.08.2003
* 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
August 11, 2003
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-11098
Summary Calendar
MOSES CALDWELL, III,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
DALLAS COUNTY; JIM BOWLES; C.W. MCKINNEY; MIKE ALCORN; GRESHEM,
Lieutenant; McDANIEL, Sergeant; W. BRAGGS; V. COLE; FINEGLASS;
EDGAR LEE McMILLAN, Deputy Chief,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 3:98-CV-59-M
--------------------
Before SMITH, BARKSDALE, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Moses Caldwell, III, Massachusetts prisoner # 97021087, was
detained in a detention center in Dallas, Texas, from March 1997 to
June 1998. He filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against the above
named defendants and alleged that, while he was in the detention
center, the defendants acted with deliberate indifference and
failed to protect him from an assault of another prisoner.
Caldwell appeals the magistrate judge’s grant of summary judgment
and dismissal of the case.
-- 1 of 2 --
2 G:\opin-sc\02-11098.opn.wpd
Caldwell’s motion for the appointment of appellate counsel is
DENIED.
Our de novo review of the record reveals that the evidence
demonstrated that Caldwell did not suffer an injury that was more
than de minimis. See Gomez v. Chandler, 163 F.3d 921, 924-25 (5th
Cir. 1999); Siglar v. Hightower, 112 F.3d 191, 193 (5th Cir. 1997);
Little v. Liquid Air Corp., 37 F.3d 1069, 1075 (5th Cir. 1994) (en
banc). The summary judgment is AFFIRMED.
-- 2 of 2 --
Verbinden Sie Omnilex, um den Rechtskorpus über Ihren KI-Assistenten zu durchsuchen.