IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-10571
Summary Calendar
AL BRIGHT, individually and as an
agent and stock holder of Horn-Williams
Ford; GINGER MILLER BRIGHT, individually
and as stock holder of Horn-Williams Ford,
Third Party Plaintiffs-Appellants,
versus
FORD MOTOR COMPANY; FORD MOTOR CREDIT
COMPANY; BRUCE G. WEAVER, individually
and as an employee or agent of Ford Motor
Company,
Third Party Defendants,
FORD MOTOR COMPANY; FORD MOTOR CREDIT COMPANY,
Third Party Defendants-Appellees
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 3:93-CV-1466-T
- - - - - - - - - -
January 26, 1999
Before JOLLY, SMITH, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Al and Ginger Bright appeal the dismissal of their civil
rights actions under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Bivens v. Six Unknown
Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971).
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 97-10571
-2-
The Brights allege that Ford Motor Company and Ford Motor Credit
Company, acting with off-duty members of the Dallas City Police
Department and Joseph Colvin, a bankruptcy trustee, discriminated
against them based upon their race. The Brights argue that the
district court erred in granting Appellants’ motion for summary
judgment because they did not have notice that summary judgment
was sought on the issue of failure to allege the violation of a
constitutional right and because summary judgment should have
been denied based on the evidence in the record. The Brights
also allege that the district court erred by entering judgment on
the jury’s verdict on their claim under the Texas Deceptive Trade
Practice Consumer Protection Act because it was inconsistent.
The Brights have failed to meet their burden of establishing
that they received inadequate notice, that there is a genuine
issue of material fact, or that the jury’s verdict was
inconsistent. See FED. R. CIV. P. 56(e); Turco v. Hoechst
Celanese Corp., 101 F.3d 1090, 1092-93 (5th Cir. 1996); Alverez
v. J. Ray McDermott & Co., 674 F.2d 1037, 1040 (5th Cir. 1982).
AFFIRMED.