Case: 14-20770 Document: 00513452875 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/05/2016
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-20770
Summary Calendar
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
April 5, 2016
JEFFREY C. COWART,
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
OFFICER D. LAVERGNE,
Defendant-Appellee
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:13-CV-396
Before KING, CLEMENT, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
Jeffrey C. Cowart, now Texas prisoner # 1758889, has appealed the
dismissal following a bench trial of his civil rights complaint alleging that
police officer D. Lavergne acted with deliberate indifference to his serious
medical needs following his arrest after an early morning traffic accident.
Cowart’s motions (1) to receive sealed documents; (2) for appointment of
counsel; (3) to add Montgomery County Sheriff Gage and other unidentified
* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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.
Case: 14-20770 Document: 00513452875 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/05/2016
No. 14-20770
jail personnel as defendants; and (4) for production of documents by the Patton
Village Police Department are DENIED.
On appeal, Cowart complains generally that the district court’s fact
findings following the bench trial were erroneous and were based on false
evidence. Cowart has not provided the court with transcripts of the pretrial
conference and bench trial, which are necessary for review of that issue. See
FED. R. APP. P. 10(b)(2); see also Richardson v. Henry, 902 F.2d 414, 415-16
(5th Cir. 1990). Accordingly, the appeal is DISMISSED IN PART.
Cowart also complains that the district court unfairly denied his
requests for issuance of subpoenas requiring the presence of witnesses at trial
and the production of documents. The record reflects that the district court
ordered the production of documents and records relating to injuries sustained
by Cowart during the traffic accident and medical treatment he received for
those injuries; the court ordered the production of medical records, police
reports, accident reports, internal affairs investigation reports, jail records,
and “all other available records relating to” Cowart’s arrest and Lavergne’s
physical condition and medical treatment. Copies of the documents that were
produced were provided to Cowart, except that Cowart was permitted to
inspect his voluminous medical records. Those materials, coupled with the
testimony presented at trial, could be expected to show what transpired on the
morning of Cowart’s arrest. In light of the record before us, Cowart’s
arguments are speculative and do not demonstrate that he had a substantial
need for the witness testimony or the documents. See Adkins v. Kaspar, 393
F.3d 559, 571 (5th Cir. 2004); Cupit v. Jones, 835 F.2d 82, 86-87 (5th Cir. 1987).
Accordingly, the appeal is AFFIRMED IN PART.
2