White v. Garcia ( 2004 )

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT November 16, 2004
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 04-40514
Summary Calendar
JERRY EARL WHITE, also known as Jerry Earl Grice
Plaintiff - Appellant
v.
BILLY GARCIA, MR REYNA
Defendants - Appellees
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 3:00-CV-137
--------------------
Before KING, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Jerry Earl White, also known as Jerry Earl Grice, appeals
the grant of summary judgment in favor of defendants dismissing
his civil-rights complaint alleging Fourth Amendment violations.
White argues that the transcript of the trial held in state court
shows that the defendants’ averments that he was arrested for
state-law violations before he was searched are lies. He also
argues that the district court erred in dismissing his complaint
without considering his response to the summary-judgment motion.
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 04-40514
-2-
The defendants’ affidavits averred that White had been
stopped and arrested for traffic violations before the search
incident to the arrest revealed the cocaine. The affidavits
submitted by the defendants met their burden as the moving party
of establishing that there was no genuine issue of material fact.
See Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806, 810 (1996); Celotex
Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 324 (1986); Gustafson v. Florida,
414 U.S. 260, 266 (1973); United States v. Thomas, 120 F.3d 564,
573 (5th Cir. 1997). White’s response to the summary-judgment
motion did not create a genuine issue of material fact precluding
summary judgment because he did not dispute that the defendants
had pulled him over for a valid traffic stop, nor did it dispute
the fact that the defendants had probable cause to arrest him for
the traffic violations. See Little v. Liquid Air Corp., 37 F.3d
1069, 1075 (5th Cir. 1994) (en banc). Therefore, the district
court was correct in granting the summary judgment motion.
Although in granting the summary-judgment motion, the
district court initially overlooked White’s response, after
White’s motion for relief from judgment, the district court
considered White’s response and appropriately concluded that
White had not carried his burden to defeat the summary-judgment
motion. The district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.