No. 99-10762
-1-
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-10762
Summary Calendar
ROY LEE SMITH,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
VANESSA R. SMITH;
JEROME THOMAS,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 3:97-CV-2410-G
--------------------
March 24, 2000
Before SMITH, BARKSDALE, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Roy Lee Smith appeals the district court’s grant of the
appellees’ motion for summary judgment in this 42 U.S.C. § 1983
case. He argues that the district court erred in granting their
motion. The district court did not so err. The appellees’
summary judgment evidence showed that they exercised reasonable
professional judgment in obtaining the warrant for appellant
Smith’s arrest, and Smith’s summary judgment evidence was
insufficient to rebut this showing. See Little v. Liquid Air
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 99-10762
-2-
Corp., Inc., 37 F.3d 1069, 1075 (5th Cir. 1994) (en banc); Malley
v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335, 345-46 (1986). The appellees’ summary
judgment evidence also showed that they did not act with malice
in initiating the investigation of appellant Smith, and Smith
likewise did not rebut this showing. See Kerr v. Lyford, 171
F.3d 330, 340 (5th Cir. 1999). The district court thus did not
err in granting summary judgment to the appellees on appellant
Smith’s federal law claims.
The district court also did not err in granting summary
judgment to the appellees on appellant Smith’s state law claims,
as he was arrested pursuant to a valid warrant and the appellees
did not act with malice in initiating the investigation against
him. See Cantu v. Botello, 910 S.W.2d 65, 66 (Tex. App. 1995);
Thrift v. Hubbard, 974 S.W.2d 70, 77 (Tex. App. 1998). Finally,
the district court did not abuse its discretion when handling
appellant Smith’s Rule 56 motion for continuance and request for
discovery, as Smith failed to show how additional discovery would
create a genuine issue of material fact. See Richardson v.
Henry, 902 F.2d 414, 417 (5th Cir. 1990); International
Shortstop, Inc. v. Rally's, Inc., 939 F.2d 1257, 1266 (5th Cir.
1991). Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED.