* 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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

FILED

April 28, 2006

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-11475

Summary Calendar

MICHAEL LEE MAHAN,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

CITY OF LUBBOCK, LUBBOCK TEXAS POLICE DEPARTMENT; 

JOHNNY HUTSON, Investigator, Lubbock Police Department Task

Force; JIMMY PACHALL, Investigator, Lubbock Police Department

Task Force; EDDIE METZIG; RICK BEDWELL,

Defendants-Appellees.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 5:02-CV-251-C

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

Before JONES, Chief Judge, and SMITH and GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Michael Mahan, Texas prisoner # 1163642, appeals from the

grant of the defendants’ motion for summary judgment and the

dismissal with prejudice of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights

complaint. We review the district court’s grant of summary

judgment de novo. Cousin v. Small, 325 F.3d 627, 637 (5th Cir.

2003). 

Notice of Appeal
2

Mahan did not file a notice of appeal from the district

court’s dismissal of his claims against the following defendants:

(1) City of Lubbock; (2) Lubbock Police Department; (3) Rick

Bedwell; and (4) Eddie Metzig. The time to file a notice of appeal

as to these defendants has expired. See FED. R. APP. P. 4(a)(1)(A).

Accordingly, the appeal of these claims is dismissed. 

Warrantless searches

Mahan argues that Jimmy Pachall and Johnny Hutson, officers

with the Lubbock police department, conducted warrantless searches

at a motel room and at a residence. He argues that these searches

violated the Fourth Amendment.

With respect to the search of the motel room, Mahan

acknowledges that he was not present at the motel room when the

officers conducted their search. Mahan could not express a

reasonable expectation of privacy. See Ibarra, 948 F.2d at 906.

Accordingly, Mahan lacks standing to challenge the issue. See id.

Similarly, with respect to the officers’ entry at the

residence, the record reflects that one of the residents consented

to allow the officers to enter. See United States v. Jones,

239 F.3d 716, 719 (5th Cir. 2001). Mahan had no standing to

contest the warrantless entry. See Ibarra, 948 F.2d at 906.

Excessive use of force and unreasonable detention

Mahan argues that the officers exercised excessive use of

force and unreasonably detained him during their search of the
3

residence. He argues that the officers’ actions violated the

Fourth Amendment.

Mahan does not dispute that he was holding a Bowie knife when

Hutson and Pachall entered the bedroom where Mahan was staying.

The officers’ response in immediately using force against him was

objectively reasonable considering the threat to the officers’

safety. See United States v. Rideau, 969 F.2d 1572, 1574 (5th Cir.

1992)(en banc). Likewise, Mahan cannot establish a genuine issue

of fact over his unreasonable detention claim. The officers were

reasonably justified in restraining him in light of the threat to

their safety. See Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 19-20 (1968). 

Discovery rulings

Mahan argues that the district court abused its discretion by

closing discovery and by denying several of his discovery requests.

The record reflects that the district court allowed some discovery

as evidenced by the officers’ disclosures and responses to Mahan’s

interrogatories. Further, the court gave Mahan ample opportunity

to conduct discovery from June 8, 2004, the date of the discovery

scheduling order, to August 23, 2004, the closing date for

discovery. See Little, 37 F.3d at 1075. Mahan has not shown how

additional discovery would have produced further evidence to

establish a genuine issue of material fact concerning his Fourth

Amendment claims. Accordingly, the district court did not abuse

its discretion in limiting discovery and granting summary judgment

for the officers. See Krim v. BancTexas Group, Inc., 989 F.2d
4

1435, 1441 (5th Cir. 1993). 

AFFIRMED IN PART AND DISMISSED IN PART.