Case Name: Manning Nelson ROLLERSON, Plaintiff-Appellant v. CITY OF FREEPORT, TEXAS; Freeport Police Department; Chris Bryant; Other Unknown Police Officers of the Freeport Police Department, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-02-17
Citations: 555 F. App'x 404
Docket Number: No. 13-20500
Parties: Manning Nelson ROLLERSON, Plaintiff-Appellant v. CITY OF FREEPORT, TEXAS; Freeport Police Department; Chris Bryant; Other Unknown Police Officers of the Freeport Police Department, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before WIENER, OWEN, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 555
Pages: 404–405

Head Matter:
Manning Nelson ROLLERSON, Plaintiff-Appellant v. CITY OF FREEPORT, TEXAS; Freeport Police Department; Chris Bryant; Other Unknown Police Officers of the Freeport Police Department, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 13-20500
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Feb. 17, 2014.
Joseph Rutherford Willie, II, Willie & Associates, P.C., Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
William S. Helfand, Chamberlain, Hrdlicka, White, Williams & Aughtry, Houston, TX, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before WIENER, OWEN, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Plaintiff-Appellant Manning Nelson Rollerson sued the Defendants-Appellees for damages that he alleged resulted from an altercation between himself and Defendant-Appellee Bryant. Rollerson filed this action in the district court claiming civil rights violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and violations of his constitutional rights under the Fourth, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. Defendants-Appel-lees sought dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim, and Rollerson failed to respond. After granting the dismissal motion of Defendants-Appellees under Rule 12(b)(6), the district court ordered Roller-son to replead and amend his complaint. When Rollerson failed to do so, the district court dismissed his action with prejudice.
We have reviewed the 'facts as alleged and the applicable law as set forth in the briefs of the parties and in the extensive Opinion and Order rendered'by the district court on May 16, 2013. As a result, we are convinced that the court committed no reversible error and, to the contrary, correctly decided the case under the circumstances. Accordingly, the Judgment of the district court is, in all respects,
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.