Case Name: Rickey L. HARGROVE, Plaintiff-Appellant v. Assistant District Attorney Donna M. WELBORN-HAWKINS, In her Individual and Official Capacity; Does I Through the Harris County District Attorney Office, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-10-19
Citations: 669 F. App'x 779
Docket Number: No. 16-20054 Summary Calendar
Parties: Rickey L. HARGROVE, Plaintiff-Appellant v. Assistant District Attorney Donna M. WELBORN-HAWKINS, In her Individual and Official Capacity; Does I Through the Harris County District Attorney Office, Defendants-Appellees
Judges: Before KING, DENNIS, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 669
Pages: 779–779

Head Matter:
Rickey L. HARGROVE, Plaintiff-Appellant v. Assistant District Attorney Donna M. WELBORN-HAWKINS, In her Individual and Official Capacity; Does I Through the Harris County District Attorney Office, Defendants-Appellees
No. 16-20054 Summary Calendar
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Date Filed: 10/19/2016
Rickey L. Hargrove, Pro Se
Before KING, DENNIS, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Rickey L. Hargrove, Texas prisoner # 1294506, appeals the district court's dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. According to Hargrove, Harris County Assistant District Attorney Donna Welborn-Hawkins and other unnamed prosecutors violated his right to due process because there was no evidence that Hargrove committed a crime. Hargrove contends that Welborn-Hawkins acted beyond the scope of her duties as a prosecutor when she fabricated evidence, which she then presented to the grand jury to obtain an indictment.
In the district court and this court, Har-grove alleges no facts in support of his claim that the prosecutors fabricated evidence that was used against him. Rather, he merely presents conclusory allegations and relies on a purported lack of physical evidence, an inconclusive DNA report, and inconsistent statements of a prosecution witness as support for his civil rights claims. Even under de novo review, therefore, Hargrove fails to show error in the district court's conclusion that absolute prosecutorial immunity bars his civil rights claims and thus his complaint fails to state a claim for relief. See Rogers v. Boatright, 709 F.3d 403, 407 (5th Cir. 2013).
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. Hargrove's motion requesting judgment for relief sought is DENIED.
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,