RLN Industries Inc v. TX Combustion Sys, et al

* 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-40873
Summary Calendar
RLN INDUSTRIES, INC.,
Plaintiff,
versus
TEXAS COMBUSTION SYSTEMS, INC., ET AL.,
Defendants,
TEXAS COMBUSTION SYSTEMS, INC.; MIKE MURPHY,
individually,
Defendants-Third Party Plaintiffs-Appellants,
versus
GILBERT L. GOMEZ, Sergeant,
Third Party Defendant-Appellee.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. G-00-CV-727
--------------------
April 23, 2002
Before DeMOSS, PARKER, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Texas Combustion Systems, Inc. (TX Combustion) and Mike
Murphy appeal the district court’s grant of summary judgment and

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 01-40873
-2-
dismissal of their counterclaims against Sergeant Gilbert Gomez.
They argue that Sergeant Gomez violated their due process rights
when, under a threat of arrest, he forced Murphy to return
equipment to the premises of RLN Industries, Inc. (RLN). Murphy
and TX Combustion also contend that the district court abused its
discretion when it denied their request to continue consideration
of the summary judgment motion to allow additional discovery.
Our de novo review of the record reveals that the district
court was correct in determining that Sergeant Gomez’s actions
were not unreasonable, that he was protected by qualified
immunity and official immunity, and that TX Combustion’s and
Murphy’s conversion claim was without merit. Anderson v. Liberty
Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 250 (1986); FED. R. CIV. P. 56(c);
Mangieri v. Clifton, 29 F.3d 1012, 1016 (5th Cir. 1994). The
district court also did not abuse its discretion in denying the
motion to continue the summary judgment motion to allow
additional discovery. See FED. R. CIV. P. 56(f); Washington v.
Allstate Ins. Co., 901 F.2d 1281, 1285 (5th Cir. 1990); Pierce v.
Smith, 117 F.2d 866, 871 n.5 (5th Cir. 1997).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --