Galvan v. City Granite Shoals, 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
March 7, 2006
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-50900
Summary Calendar
GILBERT GALVAN,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
CITY OF GRANITE SHOALS, TEXAS;
ANDREW W. ASTON, Police Officer,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 1:03-CV-716-SS
--------------------
Before JOLLY, DAVIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Gilbert Galvan, Texas prisoner #1169496, appeals the
summary-judgment dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint
against Officer Andrew W. Aston and the City of Granite Shoals
(the City). In his complaint, he alleged that Aston used
excessive force in effecting his arrest and that he was deprived
of his personal property (a wallet and pocketknife) in violation
of his due process rights.

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 04-50900
-2-
We review the district court’s order de novo. Cousin v.
Small, 325 F.3d 627, 637 (5th Cir. 2003). A review of the record
indicates that the district court did not err in determining that
Aston’s actions were objectively reasonable under the
circumstances. The videotape of Galvan’s detention and
subsequent arrest shows Galvan being argumentative, belligerent,
and uncooperative during the sobriety tests and Aston’s efforts
to handcuff Galvan. The tape also shows that as Galvan was being
led to the police car in handcuffs, he twisted away from Aston,
resulting in Aston taking him to the ground with a controlled leg
sweep. Contrary to Galvan’s assertion, the videotape is
consistent with the facts as sworn to by Aston in his affidavit.
Galvan does not, in his opening brief, address the dismissal
of this loss-of-property claim or his claims against the City.
Thus, the claims are deemed abandoned on appeal. See Yohey v.
Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993); Cinel v. Connick,
15 F.3d 1338, 1345 (5th Cir. 1994).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --