Pickett v. Johnson ( 2001 )


Menu:
  •                IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
    No. 00-40363
    Summary Calendar
    MICHAEL EUGENE PICKETT,
    Plaintiff-Appellant,
    versus
    GARY L. JOHNSON ET AL.,
    Defendants,
    BRIAN CRAWFORD, Correctional Officer;
    JULIUS ALLEN STALLING, Correctional Officer;
    BOBBY W. BURNS, Correctional Officer,
    Defendants-Appellees.
    --------------------
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Eastern District of Texas
    USDC No. 6:99-CV-62
    --------------------
    August 8, 2001
    Before JOLLY, JONES, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:*
    Michael Eugene Pickett, Texas prisoner # 570886, appeals the
    dismissal of his 
    42 U.S.C. § 1983
     complaint following a jury
    trial.
    Pickett alleges in his brief that counsel for Defendants-
    Appellees withheld evidence, specifically, medical records from
    John Sealy Hospital dated January 28, 2000.      There is nothing to
    *
    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    that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 00-40363
    -2-
    support Pickett’s assertion that the defendants withheld the
    hospital record.
    Pickett argues that the defendants did not produce a key
    trial witness, physician’s assistant Ananda Babbili, in violation
    of the magistrate judge's pretrial order, and the magistrate
    judge’s decision to proceed without Babbili prevented him from
    fully presenting his case.    Pickett makes no argument regarding
    to what Babbili would have testified or how proceeding without
    Babbili prevented him from fully presenting his case.       He has not
    shown that the magistrate judge abused her discretion in allowing
    the trial to proceed without Babbili.
    Pickett contends that the defendants' medical expert, Dr.
    Robert Brock, committed perjury and gave false, conflicting, and
    inconsistent testimony.   However, Pickett points to no evidence
    in the record indicating that Dr. Brock’s testimony was false or
    perjurious or that his medical opinion was unfounded.       To the
    extent that Pickett challenges Dr. Brock's credibility, this
    court does not weigh conflicting evidence or review credibility
    determinations made at trial.     See Martin v. Thomas, 
    973 F.2d 449
    , 453 & n.3 (5th Cir. 1992).
    Pickett contends that the defendants used their peremptory
    challenges to exclude African-Americans from the jury, resulting
    in an all-white jury that was biased.       Because Pickett made no
    objection at trial to the defendants’ strikes or to the
    composition of the jury, this issue is not reviewable.       See
    Garcia v. Excel Corp., 
    102 F.3d 758
    , 759 (5th Cir. 1997).
    No. 00-40363
    -3-
    Pickett’s motion for a subpoena duces tecum to compel the
    defendants to produce his medical records from John Sealy
    Hospital is DENIED.   His motion to correct the record on appeal
    is DENIED.
    AFFIRMED; MOTION FOR A SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM DENIED; MOTION
    TO CORRECT THE RECORD ON APPEAL DENIED.
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 00-40363

Filed Date: 8/8/2001

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/18/2021