Chalmers v. Gavin , 100 F. App'x 986 ( 2004 )

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS June 16, 2004
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 03-11315
Summary Calendar
LONNIE CHARLES CHALMERS
Plaintiff - Appellant
v.
DAVID GAVIN, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY
Defendants - Appellees
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 3:02-CV-2534-M
--------------------
Before KING, Chief Judge, and EMILIO M. GARZA and BENAVIDES,
Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Lonnie Charles Chalmers appeals the district court’s
dismissal of his civil rights complaint for failure to state a
claim under FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6). Affording liberal
construction to his brief, Chalmers contends that the inclusion
of his sexual assault conviction in a Texas Department of Public
Saftey’s (TDPS) criminal history report violated Texas’s sex
offender registration provisions since the information was used
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 03-11315
-2-
in a non-regulatory, punitive manner. He further asserts that
disclosure of this information was inconsistent with the district
court’s prior findings in cause no. 3:01-CV-528-H, which
acknowledged that Chalmers’s sexual assault indictment had been
dismissed. In his second assignment of error, Chalmers seeks to
renew his challenge to the sex offender registration requirement,
arguing that he should be permitted to petition for an order of
exemption. Chalmers contends that he is entitled to a hearing on
this issue.
Chalmers fails to demonstrate that the disclosure of
information concerning his sexual assault conviction under
Texas’s sex offender registration provisions constituted a
constitutional violation. The report generated by TDPS merely
recited all criminal charges brought against Chalmers and tracked
the salient docket entries relating those charges, including the
fact that Chalmers’s sexual assault conviction was ultimately set
aside. Because the criminal history report reflected this
development, it did not conflict with the district court’s
findings in cause no. 3:01-CV-528-H. Furthermore, Chalmers’s
claim that he was harmed by TDPS’s disclosure of the sexual
assault conviction is conclusional and does “not suffice to
prevent a motion to dismiss.” Fernandez-Montes v. Allied Pilots
Ass’n, 987 F.2d 278, 284 (5th Cir. 1993).
Chalmers abandoned his challenge to the ongoing sex offender
registration requirement in the district court. In any event,
No. 03-11315
-3-
Chalmers did not appeal from the district court’s resolution of
this issue in cause no. 3:01-CV-0528-H, and his attempt to
resurrect the same challenge in the instant appeal is therefore
rejected.
Because the district court did not err in finding that
Chalmers failed to state a claim with respect to his civil rights
suit against TDPS, we AFFIRM. See Leffall v. Dallas Indep. Sch.
Dist., 28 F.3d 521, 525 (5th Cir. 1994); Jackson v. City of
Beaumont Police Dep’t, 958 F.2d 616, 618 (5th Cir. 1992).
AFFIRMED.