Frazier v. Unknown Police,et al ( 1996 )


Menu:
  •                IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
    No. 96-10121
    Summary Calendar
    JOHN MAURICE FRAZIER,
    Plaintiff-Appellant,
    versus
    UNKNOWN POLICE OFFICERS OF DALLAS
    POLICE DEPT.; UNKNOWN POLICE OFFICERS
    OF ENNIS POLICE DEPT.; W.A. MCBEE,
    Ennis Police Officer; MICHAEL EPPLE;
    JOHN DOE, Agent, Dallas Police Dept.,
    Defendants-Appellees.
    - - - - - - - - - -
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Northern District of Texas
    USDC No. 3:94-CV-657-T
    - - - - - - - - - -
    August 19, 1996
    Before GARWOOD, JOLLY and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:*
    John Maurice Frazier appeals the district court’s dismissal
    with prejudice of his 
    42 U.S.C. § 1983
     action.   A de novo review
    of the record, the district court’s decision, and the parties’
    briefs demonstrates that the district court properly determined
    that no genuine issues of material fact remain in dispute and
    *
    Pursuant to Local Rule 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    that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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 Local Rule
    47.5.4.
    No. 96-10121
    - 2 -
    Michael Epple was entitled to summary judgment.   Brewer v.
    Wilkinson, 
    3 F.3d 816
    , 819 (5th Cir. 1993), cert. denied, 
    114 S. Ct. 1081
     (1994).   A de novo review of the pleadings and the
    district court’s opinion demonstrates that the district court
    properly granted W.A. McBee’s motion to dismiss because Frazier’s
    claim is barred by the statute of limitations.    Jackson v. City
    of Beaumont Police Dep't, 
    958 F.2d 616
    , 618 (5th Cir. 1992); Pete
    v. Metcalfe, 
    8 F.3d 214
    , 217 (5th Cir. 1993).
    The district court did not abuse its discretion in granting
    Epple’s motion for protective order and a stay of discovery.
    Leatherman v. Tarrant County Narcotics Intelligence and
    Coordination Unit, 
    28 F.3d 1388
    , 1394 (5th Cir. 1994).    Remand
    for a statement of reasons is not necessary because the record
    demonstrates that the district court did not abuse its discretion
    by denying Frazier’s motion for appointment of counsel.    Jackson
    v. Dallas Police Dep't, 
    811 F.2d 260
    , 262 (5th Cir. 1986).
    AFFIRMED.