IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-40363
Summary Calendar
MICHAEL EUGENE PICKETT,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
GARY L. JOHNSON ET AL.,
Defendants,
BRIAN CRAWFORD, Correctional Officer;
JULIUS ALLEN STALLING, Correctional Officer;
BOBBY W. BURNS, Correctional Officer,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 6:99-CV-62
--------------------
August 8, 2001
Before JOLLY, JONES, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Michael Eugene Pickett, Texas prisoner # 570886, appeals the
dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint following a jury
trial.
Pickett alleges in his brief that counsel for Defendants-
Appellees withheld evidence, specifically, medical records from
John Sealy Hospital dated January 28, 2000. There is nothing to
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 00-40363
-2-
support Pickett’s assertion that the defendants withheld the
hospital record.
Pickett argues that the defendants did not produce a key
trial witness, physician’s assistant Ananda Babbili, in violation
of the magistrate judge's pretrial order, and the magistrate
judge’s decision to proceed without Babbili prevented him from
fully presenting his case. Pickett makes no argument regarding
to what Babbili would have testified or how proceeding without
Babbili prevented him from fully presenting his case. He has not
shown that the magistrate judge abused her discretion in allowing
the trial to proceed without Babbili.
Pickett contends that the defendants' medical expert, Dr.
Robert Brock, committed perjury and gave false, conflicting, and
inconsistent testimony. However, Pickett points to no evidence
in the record indicating that Dr. Brock’s testimony was false or
perjurious or that his medical opinion was unfounded. To the
extent that Pickett challenges Dr. Brock's credibility, this
court does not weigh conflicting evidence or review credibility
determinations made at trial. See Martin v. Thomas, 973 F.2d
449, 453 & n.3 (5th Cir. 1992).
Pickett contends that the defendants used their peremptory
challenges to exclude African-Americans from the jury, resulting
in an all-white jury that was biased. Because Pickett made no
objection at trial to the defendants’ strikes or to the
composition of the jury, this issue is not reviewable. See
Garcia v. Excel Corp., 102 F.3d 758, 759 (5th Cir. 1997).
No. 00-40363
-3-
Pickett’s motion for a subpoena duces tecum to compel the
defendants to produce his medical records from John Sealy
Hospital is DENIED. His motion to correct the record on appeal
is DENIED.
AFFIRMED; MOTION FOR A SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM DENIED; MOTION
TO CORRECT THE RECORD ON APPEAL DENIED.