IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-10701
Summary Calendar
ROBERT LEE HENDERSON,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
DALLAS POLICE DEPARTMENT; ET AL.,
Defendants,
DALLAS POLICE DEPARTMENT; RICHARD HUDSON,
Ricky; JOHN T. MEANS; PAUL A. DEMAAGD,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 3:99-CV-1769-P
--------------------
March 26, 2001
Before DAVIS, JONES and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Robert Lee Henderson appeals the district court’s dismissal
of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. Henderson’s motion for leave
to supplement the record on appeal is DENIED.
Henderson’s contentions that the district court denied his
motion to add the City of Dallas as a party defendant, determined
that service of process on the City of Dallas was insufficient,
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 00-10701
-2-
and denied discovery are frivolous. Henderson has abandoned any
challenge to the dismissal of his complaint against the unserved
defendants by failing to brief the issue sufficiently. See Cinel
v. Connick, 15 F.3d 1338, 1345 (5th Cir. 1994).
Henderson challenges the district court’s determination that
Officer Demaagd and Officer Means were entitled to qualified
immunity on his false arrest claims. The district court did not
err in determining that Demaagd and Means acted with objective
reasonableness on information provided by another officer.
See Bennett v. City of Grand Prairie, 883 F.2d 400, 410 (5th Cir.
1989). Henderson did not establish that Means was liable for his
supervisory role. See Thompkins v. Belt, 828 F.2d 298, 303-04
(5th Cir. 1987).
Henderson does not identify a policy or custom related to
the alleged violation of his constitutional rights, and he does
not establish an actionable violation attributable to the
individual defendants. Accordingly, the district court properly
dismissed his claims against the City of Dallas. See
Olabisiomotosho v. City of Houston, 185 F.3d 521, 528-29 (5th
Cir. 1999).
The district court did not err in denying Henderson’s motion
for summary judgment. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). Henderson has
failed to brief sufficiently his claims concerning the following
issues: false imprisonment and malicious prosecution, the Texas
concealed handgun law; the failure to provide Miranda v. Arizona,
384 U.S. 436 (1966), warnings; the acceptance of hearsay; the
expungement of his record; the denial of his motions; and the
No. 00-10701
-3-
weight afforded to Pamela Scott’s affidavit. Accordingly, he has
abandoned these issues. See Cinel, 15 F.3d at 1345. The
judgment of the district court is affirmed.
AFFIRMED; MOTION DENIED.