Gunn v. Bell County ( 1998 )


Menu:
  •                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
    _____________________
    No. 97-50929
    Summary Calendar
    _____________________
    THOMAS ALAN GUNN,
    Plaintiff-Appellant,
    versus
    BELL COUNTY, Texas; BELL COUNTY, Sheriff;
    UNIDENTIFIED, Sheriff’s Deputies for Bell County,
    Defendants-Appellees.
    _________________________________________________________________
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Western District of Texas
    (W-96-CV-211)
    _________________________________________________________________
    May 21, 1998
    Before WIENER, BARKSDALE, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:*
    Thomas Alan Gunn, federal prisoner # 60879-080, appeals the
    dismissal of his 
    42 U.S.C. § 1983
     action.    Gunn contends that the
    district court erred by dismissing his claims, pursuant to FED. R.
    CIV. P. 12(b)(6), against Bell County and the Bell County Sheriff
    for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, and
    by denying his “Motion to Amend Jurisdiction to Include 
    28 U.S.C. § 1332
    ".
    *
    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    that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
    Based upon our review of the record, we AFFIRM the dismissal
    of the claims against Bell County and the Sheriff, and the denial
    of Gunn’s motion to amend jurisdiction, for essentially the reasons
    stated by the district court.       Gunn v. Bell County, Texas, No. W-
    96-CA-211 (W.D. Tex. September 30, 1997).            Gunn’s conclusional
    allegation, made for the first time on appeal, that the defendants
    acted with gross negligence or deliberate indifference, is not
    reversible plain error.     See Robertson v. Plano City of Texas, 
    70 F.3d 21
    , 23 (5th Cir. 1995).
    Gunn also contends that the district court erred by dismissing
    with   prejudice   his   claims   against   the   unidentified   deputies,
    pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 4(m).     Even assuming that the district
    court erred by dismissing those claims with prejudice, any error is
    harmless, because any amended complaint filed by Gunn to substitute
    named defendants would not relate back to the date of his original
    complaint under FED. R. CIV. P. 15(c)(3) and, therefore, would be
    time-barred.    See Jacobsen v. Osborne, 
    133 F.3d 315
    , 320 (5th Cir.
    1998); see also TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 16.003; Burrell v.
    Newsome, 
    883 F.2d 416
    , 418 (5th Cir. 1989).
    AFFIRMED
    - 2 -
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 97-50929

Filed Date: 5/25/1998

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/18/2021