Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-03-50571/USCOURTS-ca5-03-50571-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
City of Seguin
Appellee
Anthony Tomblin
Appellant

Document Text:

* 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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

February 2, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 03-50571

Summary Calendar

 

ANTHONY TOMBLIN,

also known as Lucky Tomblin,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

JESSE TREVINO, Officer, ET AL.,

Defendants,

CITY OF SEGUIN, Texas, 

Defendant-Appellee.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. SA-01-CV-1160

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

Before BARKSDALE, EMILIO M. GARZA, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Anthony “Lucky” Tomblin appeals from the district court’s

denial of his FED. R. CIV. P. 50 motion for judgment as a matter of

law and FED. R. CIV. P. 59 motion for new trial following the jury’s

verdict in favor of the City of Seguin, Texas, in his 42 U.S.C. §

1983 civil rights suit. Among other things, Tomblin argues that

 Case: 03-50571 Document: 005121175 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/02/2004
No. 03-50571

-2-

the City’s pervasive practice of obtaining social security numbers

(SSN) during routine traffic stops established the existence of a

well-established policy and custom, thereby entitling Tomblin to

judgment as a matter of law on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim. For

purposes of his motion for new trial, Tomblin contends that the

jury instructions were flawed because they were submitted on the

issue of municipal liability only without the benefit of the

district court’s threshold determination whether a constitutional

violation had occurred. Tomblin also argues that the jury’s

verdict was against the weight of the evidence, and that the

district court erred in failing to recite findings of fact or

conclusions of law with respect to Tomblin’s state-law claim, as

required by FED. R. CIV. P. 52.

We have reviewed the record and the briefs submitted by the

parties and hold that reasonable persons could have reached

different conclusions regarding the existence of an official City

policy or custom mandating the disclosure of a person’s SSN.

Accordingly, the jury’s determination of this issue will not be

disturbed. See Granberry v. O’Barr, 866 F.2d 112, 113 (5th Cir.

1988).

Tomblin’s challenge to the jury instructions, raised for the

first time on appeal, does not survive plain error review. See

Hartsell v. Dr. Pepper Bottling Co. of Tex., 207 F.3d 269, 272 (5th

Cir. 2000); Tex. Beef Group v. Winfrey, 201 F.3d 680, 689 (5th Cir.

2000). Similarly, we reject as lacking merit Tomblin’s arguments

 Case: 03-50571 Document: 005121175 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/02/2004
No. 03-50571

-3-

challenging the evidence supporting the jury’s verdict, and the

district court’s alleged failure to recite findings of fact and

conclusions of law. See Sherman v. United States Dep’t of the

Army, 244 F.3d 357, 365 (5th Cir. 2001); FED R. CIV. P. 52(a). 

AFFIRMED.

 Case: 03-50571 Document: 005121175 Page: 3 Date Filed: 02/02/2004