# Moore v. Harris

> Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · April 20, 1999 · 180 F.3d 263

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/17340

## Case

- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
- **Decided:** April 20, 1999
- **Citations:** 180 F.3d 263; 1999 U.S. App. LEXIS 8971; 1999 WL 274554
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/17340

## Opinion text

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

______________________

No. 98-10701
______________________

RONALD B. MOORE

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

ROBERT HARRIS, Sheriff; ET AL
Defendants,

ROBERT HARRIS, Sheriff; ERNESTO GARZA, JR., Deputy;
KAUFMAN COUNTY, TEXAS

Defendants-Appellees.
_________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas
(3:97-CV-1418)
_________________________________________

April 20, 1999

Before GARWOOD, DAVIS, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Having reviewed the briefs and the record, and concluding that the defendant deputy

had qualified immunity because there was no violation of clearly established law (see Taylor

v. Gregg, 36 F.3d 453 (5th Cir. 1994), and Hand v. Gary, 838 F.2d 1420 (5th Cir. 1988), which,

although in tension with Malley v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335 (1986), concerning the effect to be given

a search warrant for claims against officers initiating an arrest, reflect no violation of clearly

established law); and concluding further that there is no material fact issues as to the other

claims under federal law, and that judgment as a matter of law on those claims was proper

*
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be
published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule
47.5.4.
against the plaintiff, the judgment is

AFFIRMED.

2

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/17340. Public record. Not legal advice.