IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-30923
Summary Calendar
GEORGE STEVEN TABOR
Plaintiff - Appellant
v.
CITY OF SHREVEPORT; ET AL
Defendants
CITY OF SHREVEPORT; BO WILLIAMS, Mayor;
STEVE PRATOR, Chief of Police; JONDUKE BONANNO
Defendants - Appellees
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
USDC No. 98-CV-693
--------------------
June 7, 2000
Before KING, Chief Judge, and SMITH and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit
Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
George Steven Tabor appeals the district court’s grant of
the appellees’ motion for summary judgment and dismissal for
failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Tabor
contends that the district court erred in determining that 1) the
conduct alleged against Jonduke Bonanno was not actionable as a
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 99-30923
-2-
Fourth Amendment claim under § 1983, 2) probable cause supported
the seizure of Tabor’s vehicle, and 3) the City of Shreveport,
Mayor Bo Williams, and Chief of Police Steve Prator were not
liable for the seizure and impoundment of Tabor’s vehicle.
The district court granted Bonanno’s motion for summary
judgment. Although the City of Shreveport, Williams, and Prator
moved for dismissal pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), the
district court also applied the summary judgment standard when
dismissing their claims. Accordingly, the de novo summary
judgment standard of review is applied here in addressing all of
Tabor’s arguments.
We have reviewed the record and and briefs submitted by the
parties and affirm the district court’s ruling with respect to
the Fourth Amendment claim against Bonanno and the claims against
the City of Shreveport, Williams, and Prator. See Monell v.
Dept. of Social Serv. of City of New York, 436 U.S. 658, 694
(1978); Alton v. Texas A&M Univ., 168 F.3d 196, 200 (5th Cir.
1999); Petta v. Rivera, 143 F.3d 895 (5th Cir. 1998); Lynch v.
Cannatella, 810 F.2d 1363, 1376 (5th Cir. 1987).
Because we find probable cause existed to seize Tabor’s van,
we affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment for that
issue on an alternate ground. See Esteves v. Brock, 106 F.3d
674, 676 (5th Cir. 1997); United States v. Cooper, 949 F.2d 737,
746-47 (5th Cir. 1991).
AFFIRMED.