### I N THE UNI TED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FI F TH CI RCUI T

No. 12-20030 Summary Calendar

JEANNA MARIE GREER, Plaintiff-Appellant

v. HARRIS COUNTY, T EXAS, In its capacity as a Political Subdivision and/or Governmental U nit of the State of Texas; CHAR L E S A

. BAL LAR D , I n dividually, and in h is official capacity as a Harris County S heriff’s D epartment Civilian Detenti on Officer; JACOREY B. DOZIER, I ndividually, a nd in his official capacity as a Harris County Sheriff’s Department Civilian Detention Officer, Defendants-Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4:10-CV-817

Before WIENER, OWEN, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * J e a nna Marie G reer appeals the district court’s judgment, f ollowi n g a bench trial, that she take nothing from t h e defendants in her civil rights suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1 983. G reer first contends that the district court clearly erred U n i t e d S t a te s C o u rt o f A p p e al s

F i f t h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D Aug ust 2, 2013 Ly l e W . Cay ce Clerk

* Purs uant to 5 T H C I R

. R

. 47. 5, the court has d eterm ined that this op inion should not be p ublis hed and is not p reced ent excep t und er the lim ited circum s tances s et forth in 5 T H C I R

. R. 47. 5. 4. Case: 12-20030 Document: 00512329265 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/02/2013No. 12-20030

in f inding that she impeded detention officers w hile t hey w ere aiding a sick inmate and that the force used to control her was not excessive. We review the d i strict court’s c onclusions of law de novo a nd findings of fact, including its rulings on excessive use of f orce, for clear error. See Baldwin

v. S talder , 137 F.3d 836, 839 (5th Cir. 1998). “A factual finding is not c l e a r l y
erroneous as long a s i t i s p l a u s ib l e in the light o f the record r e ad as a whole.” Villafranca v. United States , 587 F.3d 257, 260 (5th Cir. 2009) (i nternal quotation m arks and citation omitted). The factual findings challenged by Greer

were s upported by the testimony of detention offi c e r s S tephen Hernandez, Charles Ballard, and Jacorey Dozier, which the district court credited over the evidence presented b y G r e e r. In light of the record as a w hole, the challenged findings were plausible and, thus, not clearly erroneous. Greer also challenges the district court’s findings that H a r r i s County adequately investigated the complaints against Ballard and Dozier for excessive force and that Ballard and Dozier were not inadequately trained or supervised. There is no authority for an award of damages against a governmental unit based on the a ctions of particular o fficers when t h e f actfinder has found that those officers inflicted no constitutional harm. City of Los Angeles v. Heller , 475 U.S. 796, 799 (1986). Greer has not s hown t h a t t h e district court erred concerning this issue. Finally, G reer assert s t h a t the district court e rred regarding its management o f di s c o v e r y and the denial of a jury trial. The record of the final pretrial conference reflects that Greer’s o nly remaining discovery requests were resolved without objection by her. While the record reflects t hat Greer initially demanded a jury trial, she did not object to the district c o urt’s subsequent sche d u l i n g of the case as a bench trial. The record reflects a “ conference memorandum” filed by the district court o ne month before trial clearly setting t h i s c a se as a bench trial. Greer was aware that the case was scheduled as a bench t rial because she mentioned that the case would be a bench trial in three
2 Case: 12-20030 Document: 00512329265 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/02/2013No. 12-20030

separate pre-trial pleadings without t a k i n g a ny e xception to the failure to schedule the case as a jury trial. When t h e case was called for a bench trial, she again made no objection and participated with counsel in the trial. Under our precedents, then, Greer’s a rguments are u navailing. See Casperone v. Landmark Oil & Gas Corp. , 819 F.2d 112, 1 16 (5th Cir. 1987); Jerr y P arks Eq u i p . Co. v. Se. Equip. Co. , 817 F.2d 340, 342 (5th C ir. 1 987). Her c ounsel’ s suggestion that the district court harbors personal animosity towards him does not provide an excuse fo r f a i l u re to object to the scheduling of a bench trial rather than a jury trial or t o discovery rulings. This argument, raised f o r the first time in a reply b rief, i s also untimely. See Valle v. City of H ouston , 613 F.3d 536, 544 n.5 (5th Cir. 2010). The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

3 Case: 12-20030 Document: 00512329265 Page: 3 Date Filed: 08/02/2013