United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS March 24, 2005
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 04-10812
Summary Calendar
BRADY L. BYRUM,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
CITY OF MESQUITE; ARRESTING POLICE OFFICERS,
Mesquite, Texas,
Defendants-Appellees.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 3:02-CV-1301
- - - - - - - - - -
Before REAVLEY, JOLLY and HIGGINBOTHAM, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Brady L. Byrum, a Texas resident, appeals the district
court’s order granting the motion for summary judgment filed by
defendants-appellees City of Mesquite (“City”) and by arresting
officers sued in their official capacity, on the ground that
Byrum had failed to establish municipal liability as required by
Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978).
Byrum had alleged that City police officers had searched his car
in violation of the Fourth Amendment, falsely imprisoned him, and
charged him with felony explosives charges that were eventually
dismissed.
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 04-10812
- 2 -
In his complaint and in his own summary-judgment motion,
Byrum summarily asserted that the constitutional violations took
place pursuant to the City’s custom or policy of failing to train
its police officers with respect to Fourth Amendment issues. A
governmental entity or municipality, as well as officers thereof
acting in their official capacity, can be held liable under
§ 1983 only if official policy or custom caused the deprivation
of a constitutional right. Monell, 436 U.S. at 694; Brooks v.
George County, Miss., 77 F.3d 834, 841 (5th Cir.), withdrawn and
superseded on other grounds, 84 F.3d 157 (5th Cir. 1996). An
official policy consists of, among other things, a policy
statement or regulation that is officially adopted and
promulgated by the municipality’s lawmaking officers. See
Williams v. Kaufman County, 352 F.3d 994, 1013 (5th Cir. 2003).
Official policy also includes “[a] persistent, widespread
practice of city officials or employees, which, although not
authorized by officially adopted or promulgated policy, is so
common and well settled as to constitute a custom that fairly
represents municipal policy.” Fields v. City of South Houston,
922 F.2d 1183, 1191-92 (5th Cir. 1991) (internal quotation marks
and citation omitted). Finally, in narrow circumstances, even a
single incident can establish an official policy “where the facts
giving rise to the violation are such that it should have been
apparent to the policymaker that a constitutional violation was
the highly predictable consequence of a particular policy or
failure to train.” Burge v. St. Tammany Parish, 336 F.3d 363,
372 (5th Cir. 2003), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 1108 (2004);
No. 04-10812
- 3 -
see Board of Comm’rs of Bryan County v. Brown, 520 U.S. 397, 404-
07 (1997).
In support of their summary-judgment motion, the defendants
submitted affidavits showing that all of the police officers
involved in the alleged incident had been trained by the City
with respect to Fourth Amendment procedures. Byrum offered no
summary-judgment evidence either to controvert the defendants’
evidence regarding training or to support his own conclusory
assertions that the City and its employees engaged in a
widespread practice of violating suspects’ Fourth Amendment
rights. Byrum has not established that the district court erred
in concluding that no genuine issue as to any material fact
existed regarding the defendants’ municipal liability. See FED.
R. CIV. P. 56(c), (e); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 325
(1986).
Byrum has effectively abandoned any claim under the Texas
Tort Claims Act by failing to challenge the district court’s
dismissal of that claim. See Walker v. Thompson, 214 F.3d 615,
625 (5th Cir. 2000); FED. R. APP. P. 28(a)(9).
We AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.