IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-40396
Summary Calendar
ROBERT ARTHUR MAGOON,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
FRANK BARNETT; TODD BENOIT; DANIEL POUNDERS; JAMES BAKER,
Defendants-Appellees.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 1:95-CV-832
- - - - - - - - - -
May 19, 2000
Before JONES, DUHÉ, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:1
Robert Arthur Magoon, Texas state prisoner # 599317, appeals
the verdict for the Defendants following a jury trial in his 42
U.S.C. § 1983 action. Magoon alleged that the Defendants, who are
all correctional officers at the Texas Department of Criminal
Justice–-Stiles Unit, used excessive force against him. On appeal
Magoon raised the following claims: (1) the district court abused
its discretion when it denied his motion for default judgment
against Frank Barnett; (2) the district court abused its discretion
when it denied his various motions to impose sanctions; (3) the
1
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
district court abused its discretion when it did not allow him to
introduce into evidence several documents allegedly pertaining to
the Defendants’ credibility and evasion of discovery; (4) the
district court abused its discretion when it denied Magoon’s motion
for appointment of trial counsel; (5) the district court abused its
discretion when it denied his request for a continuance; (6) the
district court abused its discretion when it allegedly failed to
enforce a discovery order pertaining to investigative reports; (7)
the jury selection process violated the Jury Selection and Service
Act because the jury did not represent a fair cross section of the
community; (8) the district court erred when it failed to grant a
directed verdict for Magoon; (9) the district court abused its
discretion when it denied Magoon’s motion for discovery of
photographic evidence; and (10) the district court erred when it
refused to exclude the Defendants from the court room pursuant to
Fed. R. Evid. 615.
We have carefully examined the record as to each point and
find neither error nor abuse of discretion.
Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
2