IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-40346

Summary Calendar 

LESLIE HENDERSHOT, 

Plaintiff-Appellant 

v. 

CORPORAL DUSTIN SLOVACEK, Texas Department of Public Safety State 

Highway Trooper; DEPUTY JEFFERY THOMPSON, DeWitt County Sheriff's 

Department; DEPUTY RAUL DIAZ, SR., DeWitt County Sheriff's 

Department; DOCTOR ALFRED BOWLES, DeWitt County Professional 

Certified and Licensed Medical Doctor; DOCTOR DAVID HILL, DeWitt 

County Professional Certified and Licensed Physician; DOCTOR DAVID 

BLOMSTROM, Victoria County Professional Certified and Licensed Medical 

Doctor; TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY TROOPERS, Unknown 

Law Enforcement Authorities; DEWITT COUNTY SHERIFF'S 

DEPARTMENT DEPUTIES, Unknown Law Enforcement Authorities; LAW

ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS, Unknown Law Enforcement Authorities; 

OTHER AUTHORITIES, Unknown Law Enforcement Authority, 

Defendants-Appellees 

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Southern District of Texas 

USDC No. 6:14-CV-70

United States Court of Appeals

Fif h Circuit

FILED

September 8, 2017

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 16-40346 Document: 00514147963 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/08/2017
No. 16-40346

2 

Before JOLLY, OWEN, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Leslie Hendershot, federal prisoner # 52223-379, appeals the summary 

judgment dismissal of his civil rights lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against 

Texas State Trooper Dustin Slovacek, DeWitt County Sheriff Deputies Jeffery 

Thompson and Raul Diaz, and three doctors—Alfred Bowles, David Hill, and 

David Blomstrom. Hendershot alleged that after he consumed 32 grams of 

methamphetamine during a traffic stop in front of a Texas Aryan Brotherhood 

compound, gunfire from the compound erupted and Thompson shot him in the 

face with a shotgun. He argued that the law enforcement officers used 

excessive force and that the doctors failed to diagnose and treat his gunshot 

wounds. 

We review the grant of a motion for summary judgment de novo, 

“applying the same standard as the district court.” Estate of Henson v. Wichita 

Cnty., 795 F.3d 456, 461 (5th Cir. 2015). Summary judgment is warranted “if 

the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and 

the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” FED. R. CIV. P. 56(a). 

The district court dismissed the claims against the officers in their 

individual capacities pursuant to the doctrine of qualified immunity. To 

overcome qualified immunity, Hendershot had to show a genuine dispute as to 

whether the officers “violate[d] clearly established law.” Pearson v. Callahan, 

555 U.S. 223, 243 (2009); see Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 

475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986). Because Hendershot’s version of events is “blatantly 

contradicted” by the record evidence, which includes photos of him in the 

 

* 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: 16-40346 Document: 00514147963 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/08/2017
No. 16-40346

3 

hospital after his arrest without any gunshot wounds, “no reasonable jury 

could believe” his assertions. Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 380 (2007). For the 

same reason, Hendershot fails to show a genuine dispute as to any material 

fact regarding his claims against the doctors. See Holtzclaw v. DSC Commc’ns 

Corp., 255 F.3d 254, 257-58 (5th Cir. 2001). 

 Hendershot has failed to brief, and thus “effectively abandoned,” the

dismissal of the official capacity claims against Slovacek as barred by sovereign 

immunity. Mapes v. Bishop, 541 F.3d 582, 584 (5th Cir. 2008). Although 

Hendershot also contends that the district court erred in denying his motion 

for production of the video surveillance footage from the hospital the day that 

he was admitted, he fails to show that the court abused its discretion. Am. 

Family Life Assur. Co. of Columbus v. Biles, 714 F.3d 887, 894 (5th Cir. 2013).

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. We deny the 

motion of Thompson and Diaz, incorporated in their brief, to dismiss the 

appeal. We deny Hendershot’s motion for appointment of counsel, see Ulmer 

v. Chancellor, 691 F.2d 209, 212 (5th Cir. 1982), and his motions for leave to 

file supplemental attachments to his brief, see Theriot v. Parish of Jefferson, 

185 F.3d 477, 491 n.26 (5th Cir. 1999). 

 AFFIRMED; MOTIONS DENIED. 

 Case: 16-40346 Document: 00514147963 Page: 3 Date Filed: 09/08/2017