United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT August 6, 2004
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 03-51320
Summary Calendar
JOHN T. JOSEY,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
BELL COUNTY TEXAS; PUBLIC OFFICERS OF THE BELL COUNTY
DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE; BELL COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S
OFFICE; BELL COUNTY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE; RICK MILLER;
ROBERT NARROW, County Attorney’s Investigator;
FRANK THROWER; MIGUEL JOHNSON,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. W-03-CV-63
Before JONES, BARKSDALE, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
John T. Josey, a Texas resident and former pre-trial
detainee, appeals the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil
rights suit as frivolous, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). The
district court determined that Josey’s allegations were barred by
Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). Josey alleged in his
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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.
complaint that various defendants violated his Fourth Amendment
rights and subjected him to malicious prosecution, by illegally
searching and seizing a pick-up truck belonging to his mother and
by arresting and incarcerating Josey. Josey now admits that he
subsequently pleaded guilty to a charge of possession of
methamphetamine.
Josey does not argue that the Heck bar does not apply.
He has thus effectively waived any contention regarding the legal
basis for the district court’s dismissal of his complaint.
See Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.3d 744,
748 (5th Cir. 1987). Josey does argue that he was denied his right
to a speedy trial, that his criminal defense attorneys made
mistakes, and that he was denied access to legal and writing
materials. We will not address these claims, which were either not
raised in the district court or set forth inadequately. See
Leverette v. Louisville Ladder Co., 183 F.3d 339, 342 (5th Cir.
1999). The district court did not err in dismissing Josey’s
complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1915A(b), see Ruiz v. United
States, 160 F.3d 273, 274 (5th Cir. 1998), and the judgment of the
district court is AFFIRMED.
Josey’s March 2, 2004, motion to supplement the record on
appeal is DENIED.
AFFIRMED; MOTION DENIED.
2