IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 98-10863
Summary Calendar
AMOS POLLARD,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
CITY OF DALLAS, TEXAS, doing business as Dallas Convention Center,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
For the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 3:96-CV-7-D
February 12, 1999
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, AND DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Amos Pollard, an electrician whom the City of Dallas
dismissed, appeals the entry of summary judgment against him.1 The
*
Pursuant to Fifth Circuit 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determined that this opinion should not be published and is not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 Fifth
Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
1
Pollard contends that the district court abused its
discretion by allowing the City to file a second motion for summary
judgment, subsequently granted, within 45 days of trial. Local
Rule 56.1, however, provides that “[u]nless otherwise directed by
the presiding judge, no motion for summary judgment shall be filed
within 45 days of trial.” Thus, the district court acted well
within its discretion.
only claim Pollard seeks to resuscitate on this appeal alleges that
the City violated his due process rights, cognizable under 42
U.S.C. § 1983. A municipality cannot be liable for § 1983
violations under a theory of respondeat superior or vicarious
liability. See, e.g., Collins v. Harker Heights, 503 U.S. 115, 122
(1992). Pollard must thus establish that this deprivation occurred
pursuant to an official municipal policy or as a result of a
persistent, widespread practice. See Webster v. City of Houston,
735 F.2d 838, 841 (5th Cir. 1984). He has offered no evidence to
support this contention, and summary judgment was thus proper on
the § 1983 claim. Any remaining claims are waived by Pollard’s
failure to brief them.
AFFIRMED.
2