IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
_____________________
No. 96-10214
_____________________
JOEL MASK,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
DONNIE R. ROGERS, Sgt.;
ERIC KARR, Cpl.;
DEON CLEMENTS, Lt.,
Defendants-Appellees.
_________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Texas, Lubbock
(5:94-CV-226-C)
_________________________________________________________________
December 30, 1996
Before JOLLY, JONES, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
The only question presented by this appeal is whether the
district court erred in granting the appellees' summary judgment
motion with respect to Mask's claim for damages under 42 U.S.C. §
1983, which is based upon an arrest alleged to be without probable
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
cause.1 The issue may be reduced to asking simply whether there is
a genuine dispute of fact as to whether the police had probable
cause to arrest Mask.
The evidence produced at the summary judgment stage
established that the police officers responded to a domestic
disturbance call at the home of Mask's mother. The call involved
Mask's brother and was the second such call of the evening. While
at the residence to arrest Mask's brother, the police heard loud
shouting from within the house and, upon entering, found Mask
threatening his wife. Thereafter, Mask left the house and went to
the front porch where he and his brother engaged in a heated
argument that required police intervention. The officers
subsequently arrested Mask for fighting, disorderly conduct, loud
and profane language, apparent intoxication, assault and
threatening an officer. Mask disputed this account of the evening
but failed to bear his burden of presenting evidence raising a
genuine issue of material fact. Thus, because of the absence of a
genuine issue of material fact as to the presence of probable cause
1
The district court also found that Heck v. Humphrey, 114
S.Ct. 2364 (1992), barred Mask's malicious prosecution claim and
that the record lacked facts to support Mask's claim of excessive
force. Mask does not brief these issues on appeal and they are,
therefore, considered abandoned. See Brinkmann v. Dallas County
Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987).
2
to arrest, summary judgment in favor of the police officers was
appropriate.
We conclude, therefore, that, with respect to the Fourth
Amendment claim, the district court did not err in granting summary
judgment. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is
A F F I R M E D.
3