Valadez v. El Paso County, 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 01-50219
Summary Calendar
GILBERTO VALADEZ,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
EL PASO COUNTY; ET AL.,
Defendants,
EL PASO COUNTY; LEO SAMANIEGO,
Sheriff, Individually and in
His Official Capacity,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. EP-00-CV-203-H
--------------------
September 21, 2001
Before JONES, SMITH, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Gilberto Valadez appeals the district court’s grant of the
defendants’ motions for summary judgment and judgment on the
pleadings. Valadez argues that the district court should not
have granted summary judgment to the County and Sheriff Samaniego
in his official capacity because the alleged illegal entry and
search of his home was conducted pursuant to Samaniego’s tacit

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 01-50219
-2-
policy of ratification. He relies on Sharp v. City of Houston,
164 F.3d 923 (5th Cir. 1999) for this proposition. Valadez
presents no argument on the other issues that were addressed in
the district court’s order granting the defendants’ motions.
Accordingly, these issues are abandoned. See Yohey v. Collins,
985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993).
Valadez’s reliance on Sharp is misplaced. Unlike Sharp,
Valadez has not shown that the conduct of which he complains was
so widespread that Samaniego and the County should have, in the
exercise of reasonable care, known of and remedied it. Rather,
Valadez has presented evidence of only a single, isolated
incident of wrongdoing that was not undertaken in accordance with
official policy. This is insufficient to establish liability on
the part of the appellees. See Oklahoma City v. Tuttle, 471 U.S.
808, 823 (1985)(plurality opinion). Valadez has not shown that
the district court erred in granting the defendants’ motion for
summary judgment. See Topalian v. Ehrman, 954 F.2d 1125, 1131
(5th Cir. 1992). Accordingly, the judgment of the district court
is AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --