Aguilar v. Shaw

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-40901
Summary Calendar
TIMOTHY A. AGUILAR,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
JAMES A. SHAW et al.,
Defendants,
FNU GIDDENS, Officer; UNIDENTIFIED
FOX; DONALD CHASTAIN; UNIDENTIFIED
ANDERSON; JESSE DUNCAN,
Defendants-Appellees.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 6:94-CV-1042
- - - - - - - - - -
October 20, 1997
Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Texas prisoner Timothy Aguilar, no. 647166, appeals the
magistrate judge’s final judgment following a bench trial in his
42 U.S.C. § 1983 action.
Although Aguilar contends that the magistrate judge abused
her discretion when she ordered the clerk to strike his 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 95-40901
-2-
for a jury trial, he waived his right to a jury trial by not
timely objecting to the magistrate judge’s action. See Wauhop v.
Allied Humble Bank, N.A., 926 F.2d 454, 455-56 (5th Cir. 1991).
The magistrate judge did not err by denying Aguilar’s motion to
amend his complaint. See Baker v. Putnal, 75 F.3d 190, 196 (5th
Cir. 1996). The magistrate judge did not abuse her discretion by
denying Aguilar’s motion to file a supplemental complaint. See
Lewis v. Knutson, 699 F.2d 230, 239 (5th Cir.(Tex. 1983).
The magistrate judge did not abuse her discretion by denying
writs of habeas corpus ad testificandum and subpoenas requested
by Aguilar. See Cupit v. Jones, 835 F.2d 82, 86 (5th Cir. 1987);
Ballard v. Spradley, 557 F.2d 476, 480 (5th Cir. 1977). The
magistrate judge did not abuse her discretion by denying
Aguilar’s motion to compel disclosure. See Richardson v. Henry,
902 F.2d 414, 417 (5th Cir. 1990). The magistrate judge did not
abuse her discretion by denying Aguilar’s motion for continuance.
See Dorsey v. Scott Wetzel Services, Inc., 84 F.3d 170, 171 (5th
Cir. 1996); see also Transamerica Insurance Co. v. Avenell, 66
F.3d 715, 721 (5th Cir. 1995). The magistrate judge did not
abuse her discretion by denying his motion regarding sanctions
and inference to be drawn due to spoilation of evidence prior to
trial. See Polanco v. City of Austin, 78 F.3d 968, 982 (5th Cir.
1996).
Although Aguilar argues that the magistrate judge abused her
discretion by denying his various motions for injunctive relief,
No. 95-40901
-3-
this issue was previously decided against Aguilar in an
interlocutory appeal and is established as law of the case. The
magistrate judge did not abuse her discretion by denying his
motions. See Royal Ins. Co. of America v. Quinn-L Capital Corp.,
3 F.3d 877, 881 (5th Cir. 1993). The magistrate judge did not
abuse her discretion by denying the request for a Government-paid
transcript. See Oliver v. Collins, 904 F.2d 278, 282 (5th Cir.
1990).
Although Aguilar challenges the magistrate judge’s findings
of fact, the fact findings are not clearly erroneous. See Seal
v. Knorpp, 957 F.2d 1230, 1234 (5th Cir. 1992). Aguilar
abandoned his concerns regarding the magistrate judge’s
conclusions of law by not arguing them in his brief. See Price
v. Digital Equip. Corp., 846 F.2d 1026, 1028 (5th Cir. 1988).
AFFIRMED.