IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 98-20012
Summary Calendar
PAUL EARL DORSEY,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
HARRIS COUNTY JAIL; ET AL,
Defendants
SERGEANT FULLER; S.L. JOSEPH;
R.L. RICHARDS,
Defendants-Appellees.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. H-93-CV-3287
- - - - - - - - - -
November 12, 1998
Before KING, BARKSDALE, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Paul Earl Dorsey, Texas prisoner # 642562, appeals the
district court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of the
defendants in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights action. Dorsey
contends that the district court erred in granting a summary
judgment in favor of the defendants on his racial discrimination
claim, his failure-to-protect claim, and his retaliation claim.
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 98-20012
-2-
We have reviewed the record and Dorsey’s brief and AFFIRM the
district court’s judgment for essentially the same reasons set
forth by the district court. Dorsey v. Harris County Jail,
No. H-93-CV-3287 (S.D. Tex. June 19, 1997 and Dec. 16, 1997).
Dorsey argues that the district court failed to address his
claim that the defendants violated his substantive due process
rights by filing a false disciplinary charge against him for his
involvement in a February 27, 1993, altercation. Because the
charges against Dorsey were dismissed and he suffered no harm as
a result of the charges, Dorsey has not shown that his
constitutional rights were violated. See Woods v. Smith, 60 F.3d
1161, 1165 n.16 (5th Cir. 1995); see also United Indus, Inc. v.
Simon-Hartley, Ltd., 91 F.3d 762, 765 n.6 (5th Cir. 1996)
(district court judgment may be affirmed on any ground supported
by the record).
Dorsey argues that the district court erred in granting a
summary judgment in favor of the defendants even though Joseph
and Richards did not file a motion for summary judgment and
Richards had not been served. Because the district court gave
Dorsey notice and an opportunity to come forward with evidence in
opposition to the motion for summary judgment, the district court
did not err in granting a summary judgment sua sponte in favor of
Joseph and Richards. See Washington v. Resolution Trust Corp.,
68 F.3d 935, 939 (5th Cir. 1995). The record indicates that a
summons was issued for Richards but was returned unexecuted and
marked “address unknown.” The district court did not err in
granting a summary judgment in favor of Richards even though he
No. 98-20012
-3-
had not been served.
Dorsey argues that the district court erred in granting a
summary judgment without providing Dorsey an adequate opportunity
to conduct discovery. Because Dorsey has not demonstrated how
further discovery would have enabled him to oppose a motion for
summary judgment, he has not shown that the district court erred
in granting a summary judgment without providing him an adequate
opportunity to conduct discovery. See Paul Kadair, Inc. v. Sony
Corp. of America, 694 F.2d 1017, 1030 (5th Cir. 1983). The
district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED. Dorsey’s motion for
recusal of the district court judge, motion for discovery with
S.C. Joseph, request for production of documents, motion for an
order compelling inspection of documents, and motion for a
default judgment are DENIED.
AFFIRMED; MOTIONS DENIED.
Dorsey v. Harris County Jail
Combined Opinion