Rogers v. Cr Justice Facil ( 1998 )

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-30751
Summary Calendar
JESSE ROGERS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
CRIMINAL JUSTICE FACILITY OF IBERIA PARISH;
GREEN, LIEUTENANT; AL MERITS, LIEUTENANT;
NATHANIEL MITCHELL; DAN DAVID; SIDNEY HEBERT,
SHERIFF; ERROL ANTOINE ROMO ROMERO, SHERIFF,
Defendants-Appellees.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
USDC No. 96-CV-1932
- - - - - - - - - -
April 22, 1998
Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Jesse Rogers appeals the dismissal of his civil rights
action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged torture and abuse which
occurred while he was incarcerated at Iberia Parish Criminal
Justice Facility. Rogers argues that the district court erred in
granting Appellants’ motion for summary judgment and dismissing
his action as untimely. He contends that the doctrine of contra
non valentem agere nulla currit praescripto operates to suspend
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
No. 97-30751
-2-
the statute of limitations and make this action timely. He also
argues that the district court erred in excluding expert
testimony which he submitted and in improperly weighing his own
affidavit.
We have reviewed the record and the briefs of the parties
and affirm substantially for the reasons given by the district
court. See Rogers v. Criminal Justice Facility of Iberia Parish,
96-CV-1932 (W.D. La. July 1, 1997). Rogers has failed to meet
his burden of establishing that there is a genuine issue of
material fact, or that the district court erred in its
evidentiary or legal holdings. FED. R. CIV. P. 56(e); Melton v.
Teachers Ins. & Annuity Ass’n of America, 114 F.3d 557, 559 (5th
Cir. 1997). Although it was not necessary to exclude any portion
of Rogers’ affidavit as inadmissible, any error resulting from
this exclusion was harmless. See Richardson v. Oldham, 12 F.3d
1373, 1378 (5th Cir. 1994).
AFFIRMED.