Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-02-51087/USCOURTS-ca5-02-51087-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 

---

* 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

January 28, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 02-51087

Summary Calendar

 

RAMON B. ISAAC, also known as Raymond B. Isaac,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

TIMOTHY B. KEITH, Warden, ERNEST GUTIERREZ, Assistant

Warden; JOHN DOE, Bus Driver; JOHN DOE, Bus Driver # 2,

Defendants-Appellees.

--------------------

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. SA-02-CV-37

--------------------

Before SMITH, DeMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Ramon B. Isaac, Texas prisoner # 692378, appeals from the

dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit. He argues that the

magistrate judge erred in granting Ernest Guterrez’s motion

for summary judgment and, additionally, that the magistrate

judge abused his discretion both in denying Isaac’s FED. R. CIV.

P. 60(b) motion and in dismissing the claims against the unnamed

defendants with prejudice. We affirm.

 Case: 02-51087 Document: 0051511390 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/28/2004
2

Isaac’s complaint did not, as he contends on appeal, allege

that Guterrez implemented an unconstitutional policy. As this

is the only basis urged for reversal of the summary judgment

dismissal, Isaac has not demonstrated an entitlement to relief.

See Skotak v. Tenneco Resins, Inc., 953 F.2d 909, 912 (5th Cir.

1992). We further hold that the magistrate judge did not abuse his

discretion in denying Isaac Rule 60(b) relief given that his

affidavit would not have produced a different result if presented

before summary judgment was awarded to Guterrez. See Goldstein v.

MCI WorldCom, 340 F.3d 238, 257 (5th Cir. 2003).

Finally, we construe the magistrate judge’s dismissal of the

unnamed defendants as one made pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 41(b) and

hold that there was no abuse of discretion. See Dorsey v. Scott

Wetzel Servs., 84 F.3d 170, 171 (5th Cir. 1996).

AFFIRMED.

 Case: 02-51087 Document: 0051511390 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/28/2004