eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 Federal Courts
 US Court of Appeals Cases
 Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
 2002-05

Wright v. Gaspard ( 2002 )


Menu:
 
  •                       IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-30399
Summary Calendar
PETER WRIGHT,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
MARK GASPARD; RYAN GASPARD; DONALD GREMILLION,
Individually and in his official capacity; BOBBY HAYES,
Individually and in his official capacity; BILLY TIGNER,
Individually and in his official capacity; JOE MENZINA,
Captain, Individually and in his official capacity; BARON KAYLO,
Individually and in his official capacity,
Defendants-Appellees.
-----------------------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
USDC No. 98-CV-2341
-----------------------------------
May 9, 2002
Before JOLLY, SMITH and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Peter Wright, Louisiana prisoner #77032, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his excessive
force and excessive punishment claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He asserts that the district
court erred in allowing the trial to go forward when discovery was not complete; the jury verdict was
against the weight of the evidence; the court erroneously excluded evidence regarding an alleged 5th
Amendment violation; the court erred in conducting trial without all of his witnesses; and the court
*
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be
published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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.
erred in denying his motions for judgment as a matter of law and for a new trial pursuant to Fed. R.
Civ. P. 59.
Wright’s argument regarding discovery is without merit. He complains that the medical
records tendered in response to his discovery request were those of another person. However,
Wright had possession of the records well before trial and he did not bring the error to the court’s
attention, but rather, waited until mid-trial to request that the appropriate records be tendered. The
court did not err in refusing this request, as it should have been made prior to trial.
Wright’s remaining arguments are insufficiently briefed to raise an appropriate issue for
appeal. He essentially challenges the jury’s credibility determinations and contends that the judgment
against him was in error. Wright provides no legal or factual support for these arguments.
The jury is solely responsible for determining the weight and credibility of the evidence.
United States v. Jaramillo,
    42 F.3d 920
    , 923 (5th Cir. 1995). The appellant’s brief must contain an
argument, which in turn must contain his “contentions and the reasons for them, with citations to the
authorities and parts of the record on which the appellant relies” and “for each issue, a concise
statement of the applicable standard of review[.]” Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(9); see Yohey v. Collins,
    985 F.2d 222
    , 225 (5th Cir. 1993). General arguments giving only broad standards of review and not
citing to specific errors are insufficient to preserve issues for appeal. See Brinkmann v. Dallas County
Deputy Sheriff Abner,
    813 F.2d 744
    , 748 (5th Cir. 1987). Although replete with conclusional
assertions and citation to cases for settled points of law, Wright’s arguments fail to present a legal
or factual argument (besides credibility) addressing the jury’s verdict. Wright’s brief does not suggest
any basis for an appeal. His citation to Giles v. Cain,
    734 So. 2d 109 
    (La. Ct. App. 1999), writ
granted in part,
    762 So. 2d 1116 
    (2000), is unavailing as that case is inapposite.
AFFIRMED.
2