Leach v. Marin ( 2001 )

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-20240
Summary Calendar
EDDIE A. LEACH, JR.,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
J.G. MARIN; TOMMY B. THOMAS; Sheriff;
LISA BURCHETT; DEPUTY THORNTON,
Defendants-Appellees.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. H-99-CV-1626
- - - - - - - - - -
August 31, 2001
Before JONES, SMITH, and EMILIO M GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Eddie A. Leach, Jr., Texas prisoner # 825037, challenges
the district court’s denial of his request to proceed in forma
pauperis (IFP) on appeal and the district court’s conclusion that
his appeal is not taken in good faith. He also argues that the
district court abused its discretion when it denied his motion to
compel discovery and his motions to grant continuances.
The district court properly granted summary judgment on
Leach’s excessive force and retaliation claims. The evidence
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 01-20240
-2-
established that no injury occurred to Leach on the day of the
alleged excessive force incident. See Gomez v. Chandler, 163
F.3d 921, 923 (5th Cir. 1999). The record also established that
the acts Leach characterized as “retaliation” were either
unsupported by any summary-judgment evidence and/or served a
legitimate prison objective. See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477
U.S. 317, 322 (1986); Grabowski v. Jackson County Public
Defenders Office, 47 F.3d 1386, 1392 (5th Cir. 1995).
The district court did not abuse its discretion with respect
to Leach’s discovery requests. See Krim v. BancTexas Group,
Inc., 989 F.2d 1435, 1441-42 (5th Cir. 1993). The defendants
provided the records in the district court’s discovery order.
Leach fails to demonstrate how the information he allegedly
lacked would create a genuine issue of material fact. Id.
Accordingly, Leach’s IFP request is DENIED, and his appeal is
DISMISSED as frivolous. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2; Baugh v. Taylor,
117 F.3d 197, 202 & n.24 (5th Cir. 1997).