Court Opinion

ID: 17585
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2010-04-25 07:05:49+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:55:24.488092
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

                     _______________________

                           No. 98-30457
                     _______________________

LUCILLE BERGERON STELLY, Individually and on behalf of Oliver
Joseph Stelly Jr., LARRY JAMES STELLY; DEBRA ANN STELLY GUIDRY;
LONNIE JOSEPH STELLY; BONNIE STELLY GUNTER; CYNTHIA ANN STELLY;
LUCY MARIE STELLY; CONNIE STELLY THOMASSEE; PAMELA ANN STELLY;
SAMANTHA STELLY QUEBEDEAUX,

                                            Plaintiffs-Appellants,

                              versus

HOWARD ZERANGUE, JR., Individually and as Sheriff of St. Landry
Parish, Louisiana, ET AL,

                                                         Defendants,

HOWARD ZERANGUE, JR., Individually and as Sheriff of St. Landry
Parish, Louisiana; FLOYD SOILEAU; AUGUST DURROSSEAU, Individually
and as Deputy Sheriff of St. Landry Parish; MICHAEL S. STELLY,
Individually and as Deputy Sheriff of St. Landry Parish, LAURA
BALTHAZAR, Individually and as Deputy Sheriff of St. Landry Parish,

                                               Defendants-Appellees.

_________________________________________________________________

           Appeal from the United States District Court
               for the Western District of Louisiana
                            (96-CV-2113)
_________________________________________________________________

                           May 17, 1999

Before JONES, DUHÈ, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.*

PER CURIAM:1

    1
     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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
           The court has considered this appeal by means of the

briefs, oral argument and pertinent portions of the record. Having

done so, we cannot conclude that the district court committed clear

error in exonerating the appellees of state-law negligence.           The

district court rested his findings not only on evidence in the

record,   but   also   on   credibility   determinations   that   resolved

serious factual disputes.        This court is not in a position to

second-guess those critical determinations.           No constitutional

claims are preserved here.       The judgment of the district court is

therefore AFFIRMED.

           AFFIRMED.

                                     2