United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 20-50403

Summary Calendar

Mauro C. Palacio, 

Plaintiff—Appellant,

versus

Justin Caraway; Deputy Sheriff Ray Miller; Deputy 

Sheriff Cari Davis; U.S. Marshal Roderick Tisdale, 

Defendants—Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 6:18-CV-111

Before Jolly, Willett, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Mauro C. Palacio, Texas prisoner # 2271249, appeals the dismissal, 

on motions for summary judgment and judgment on the pleadings, of his 42 

U.S.C. § 1983 claims of illegal search and seizure, excessive force, and failure 

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited 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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

October 21, 2021

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 20-50403 Document: 00516064610 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/21/2021
No. 20-50403

2

to train against the defendants. He also seeks remand based on the 

defendants’ alleged failure to serve him with their summary judgment 

exhibits. 

Review of Palacio’s failure-to-serve argument is precluded by his

failure to object in the district court. See Rushing v. Kansas City S. Ry. Co., 

185 F.3d 496, 508 (5th Cir. 1999);1 McCloud River R. Co. v. Sabine River Forest 

Prods., Inc., 735 F.2d 879, 882 (5th Cir. 1984). Palacio has also abandoned, 

through failure to brief, a separate claim that he was subject to an illegal 

arrest. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993). Finally, we 

do not consider Palacio’s claim that the defendants violated his Fifth 

Amendment rights to counsel and silence, as Palacio raises it for the first time 

on appeal. See Leverette v. Louisville Ladder Co., 183 F.3d 339, 342 (5th Cir. 

1999).

We review the grant of summary judgment de novo, McFaul v. 

Valenzuela, 684 F.3d 564, 571 (5th Cir. 2012), and we “may affirm the district 

court’s judgment on any basis supported by the record,” United States v. 

Clay, 408 F.3d 214, 218 n. 7 (5th Cir. 2005) (citation omitted). 

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Palacio’s 

substantive claims for relief. McFaul, 684 F.3d at 571. Regarding municipal 

liability, Palacio has identified no “policy statement, ordinance, regulation, 

or decision officially adopted and promulgated by [Hamilton County]” 

concerning illegal search, seizure, or arrest. Monell v. Dep’t of Social Servs., 

436 U.S. 658, 690-91 (1978). Likewise, on his claim of supervisor liability 

against Caraway, Palacio hasfailed to allege Caraway’s personal involvement 

in any unlawful search or arrest and has identified no constitutionally 

1 Rushing was superseded by rule amendment on other grounds as noted in Mathis 

v. Exxon Corp., 302 F.3d 448, 459 n.16 (5th Cir. 2002).

Case: 20-50403 Document: 00516064610 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/21/2021
No. 20-50403

3

deficient policy implemented by Caraway that led to an illegal search or 

arrest. See Thompkins v. Belt, 828 F.2d 298, 304 (5th Cir. 1987).

The district court also correctly found that the defendants are entitled 

to qualified immunity because Palacio failed to allege facts showing that the 

challenged searches were constitutionally unreasonable. See Melton v. 

Phillips, 875 F.3d 256, 261 (5th Cir. 2017). He offered no refutation of or 

competent evidence disputing Caraway’s affidavit asserting that the 

challenged searches were conducted pursuant to validly obtained consent. 

See generally Fernandez v. California, 571 U.S. 292, 306 (2014). 

Lastly, the district court properly entered judgment on the pleadings 

for Tisdale against Palacio’s claims of illegal search and excessive force. See 

Ruiz v. Brennan, 851 F.3d 464, 468 (5th Cir. 2017); Doe v. MySpace, Inc., 528 

F.3d 413, 418 (5th Cir. 2008); Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). As noted above, 

Palacio failed to show a violation of his Fourth Amendment rights by any 

defendant. And his wholly conclusory allegation of excessive force does not 

suffice to state a claim for relief. See Taylor v. Books A Million, Inc., 296 F.3d 

376, 378 (5th Cir. 2002).

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

Case: 20-50403 Document: 00516064610 Page: 3 Date Filed: 10/21/2021