Tomblin v. Trevino , 86 F. App'x 716 ( 2004 )


Menu:
  •                                                        United States Court of Appeals
    Fifth Circuit
    F I L E D
    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS         February 2, 2004
    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
    Charles R. Fulbruge III
    Clerk
    No. 03-50571
    Summary Calendar
    ANTHONY TOMBLIN,
    also known as Lucky Tomblin,
    Plaintiff-Appellant,
    versus
    JESSE TREVINO, Officer, ET AL.,
    Defendants,
    CITY OF SEGUIN, Texas,
    Defendant-Appellee.
    --------------------
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Western District of Texas
    USDC No. SA-01-CV-1160
    --------------------
    Before BARKSDALE, EMILIO M. GARZA, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:*
    Anthony “Lucky” Tomblin appeals from the district court’s
    denial of his FED. R. CIV. P. 50 motion for judgment as a matter of
    law and FED. R. CIV. P. 59 motion for new trial following the jury’s
    verdict in favor of the City of Seguin, Texas, in his 
    42 U.S.C. § 1983
     civil rights suit.   Among other things, Tomblin argues that
    *
    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    that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 03-50571
    -2-
    the City’s pervasive practice of obtaining social security numbers
    (SSN) during routine traffic stops established the existence of a
    well-established policy and custom, thereby entitling Tomblin to
    judgment as a matter of law on his 
    42 U.S.C. § 1983
     claim.              For
    purposes of his motion for new trial, Tomblin contends that the
    jury instructions were flawed because they were submitted on the
    issue of municipal liability only without the benefit of the
    district court’s threshold determination whether a constitutional
    violation had occurred.          Tomblin also argues that the jury’s
    verdict was against the weight of the evidence, and that the
    district court erred in failing to recite findings of fact or
    conclusions of law with respect to Tomblin’s state-law claim, as
    required by FED. R. CIV. P. 52.
    We have reviewed the record and the briefs submitted by the
    parties   and    hold   that   reasonable   persons   could   have   reached
    different conclusions regarding the existence of an official City
    policy or custom mandating the disclosure of a person’s SSN.
    Accordingly, the jury’s determination of this issue will not be
    disturbed.      See Granberry v. O’Barr, 
    866 F.2d 112
    , 113 (5th Cir.
    1988).
    Tomblin’s challenge to the jury instructions, raised for the
    first time on appeal, does not survive plain error review.               See
    Hartsell v. Dr. Pepper Bottling Co. of Tex., 
    207 F.3d 269
    , 272 (5th
    Cir. 2000); Tex. Beef Group v. Winfrey, 
    201 F.3d 680
    , 689 (5th Cir.
    2000).    Similarly, we reject as lacking merit Tomblin’s arguments
    No. 03-50571
    -3-
    challenging the evidence supporting the jury’s verdict, and the
    district court’s alleged failure to recite findings of fact and
    conclusions of law.   See Sherman v. United States Dep’t of the
    Army, 
    244 F.3d 357
    , 365 (5th Cir. 2001); FED R. CIV. P. 52(a).
    AFFIRMED.
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 03-50571

Citation Numbers: 86 F. App'x 716

Judges: Barksdale, Garza, Dennis

Filed Date: 2/2/2004

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/19/2024