Brady v. Gelino

* 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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
November 6, 2003
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-41440
Summary Calendar
PHILIP M. BRADY,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
RANDALL GELINO, Individually & in his
Official Capacity as Supervisor/Foreman,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
(1:01-CV-254)
Before BARKSDALE, EMILIO M. GARZA, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Philip Brady appeals, pro se, the summary judgment dismissal
of his action against Randall Gelino. Brady contends that Gelino’s
defense to the action is nullified because he was improperly
represented by government attorneys. However, neither Kentucky v.
Graham, 473 U.S. 159 (1985), nor 28 C.F.R. § 50.15 bar government
representation of government employees sued in their individual
capacity. “We doubt in any event that the rules regarding

-- 1 of 2 --

2
representation by the government of its employees are intended for
the protection of opposing litigants....” Bontkowski v. Smith, 305
F.3d 757, 760 (7th Cir. 2002).
AFFIRMED

-- 2 of 2 --