Case Name: Marcus E. BARROSO; Twelve John Does; Twelve Jay Does; Twelve Joe Does; Twelve Jeff Does, Plaintiffs-Appellants v. SHERIFF OF BEXAR COUNTY, TEXAS; Bryan Collier, TDCJ, Executive Director; Bexar County, Texas, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-03-13
Citations: 680 F. App'x 338
Docket Number: No. 16-51096 Summary Calendar
Parties: Marcus E. BARROSO; Twelve John Does; Twelve Jay Does; Twelve Joe Does; Twelve Jeff Does, Plaintiffs-Appellants v. SHERIFF OF BEXAR COUNTY, TEXAS; Bryan Collier, TDCJ, Executive Director; Bexar County, Texas, Defendants-Appellees
Judges: Before JONES, WIENER, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 680
Pages: 338–339

Head Matter:
Marcus E. BARROSO; Twelve John Does; Twelve Jay Does; Twelve Joe Does; Twelve Jeff Does, Plaintiffs-Appellants v. SHERIFF OF BEXAR COUNTY, TEXAS; Bryan Collier, TDCJ, Executive Director; Bexar County, Texas, Defendants-Appellees
No. 16-51096 Summary Calendar
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Filed March 13, 2017
William R. Schlecht, Managing Member, Rogers. Schlecht, P.L.L.C., San Antonio, TX, Benjamin Franklin Youngblood, III, Law Offices of Benjamin F. Youngblood, III, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiffs-Appellants
Susan A. Bowen, Francis J. Ford, Assistant District Attorneys, Clarkson Frederick Brown, Litigation Counsel, District Attorney’s Office for the County of Bexar, San Antonio, TX, for Defendants-Appel-lees Sheriff of Bexar County, Texas, Bexar County, Texas
Christopher Lee Lindsey, Assistant Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General, Law Enforcement Defense Division, Austin, TX, Susan A. Bowen, Assistant District Attorney, District Attorney’s Office for the County of Bexar, San Antonio, TX, for Defendant-Appellee Bryan Collier, TDCJ
Before JONES, WIENER, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
The court has carefully reviewed this appeal in light of the briefs, pertinent portions of the record, and the comprehensive district court orders. There is no justification for prolonging this litigation. As this court has ordered before, plaintiffs did not timely appeal the district court's grant of summary judgment. Their appeal is instead confined to the district court's August 18, 2016 order. We conclude that the Appellant's arguments are meritless, as the carefully written orders of the district courts patiently explain. We find no reversible error of law or fact and affirm the district court's August 18, 2016 order for essentially the same reasons articulated by that order. AFFIRMED.
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.