The opinion
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT December 30, 2005
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 04-41132
Summary Calendar
SILVESTRE MORENO, JR.,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
CITY OF PROGRESO, TEXAS; CHARLIE VASQUEZ, City Alderman City of
Progreso; DAVID HERNANDEZ, JR., Police Lieutenant; UVALDO LOPEZ,
Police Officer; MELISSA ALANIS, Municipal Judge,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 7:03-CV-352
--------------------
Before JONES, WIENER, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Silvestre Moreno, Jr., appeals the district court’s grant of
summary judgment in favor of the defendants and the dismissal with
prejudice of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. He argues that the
district court erred in ruling there was probable cause for his
arrest; erred in failing to hold that his Fourteenth Amendment
rights were violated; erred in failing to hold that the City of
Progresso was liable; erred in granting qualified immunity to
Lieutenant Hernandez and Officer Lopez; erred in concluding that
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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.
Municipal Judge Alanis was absolutely immune; and erred in granting
the defendants’ summary judgment motion because there were genuine
issues of material fact and because discovery had not yet been
completed.
Moreno does not challenge the district court’s dismissal of
his claims under the Sixth and Eighth Amendments or the district
court’s finding that the defendants’ alleged violation of state
penal laws failed to state a violation of federal law under
42 U.S.C. § 1983. Accordingly, these claims have been abandoned.
Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748
(5th Cir. 1987).
After conducting a de novo review of the record, we conclude
that there was probable cause to arrest Moreno for assaulting
Tesoro Vasquez and that the district court did not err in granting
the defendants’ summary judgment motion with respect to Moreno’s
Fourth Amendment claims against the city, the police officers, and
the municipal judge. See Sorenson v. Ferrie, 134 F.3d 325, 328
(5th Cir. 1998); TEX. PEN. CODE § 22.01(a)(1) (Vernon 2003).
Although Moreno asserted that he told Officer Lopez that the
assault was legally justified under Texas Penal Code § 9.62, this
assertion was contained in his unverified complaint, which did not
constitute competent summary judgment evidence.
Moreno’s Fourteenth Amendment claims are without merit. The
negligent failure to investigate other leads does not violate due
process. See Baker v. McCollan, 443 U.S. 137, 144 (1979); Sanders
2
v. English, 950 F.2d 1152, 1161-62 (5th Cir. 1992). Moreover, a
person’s interest in his reputation alone, apart from some more
tangible interest such as employment, is not a sufficient liberty
or property interest to invoke the procedural protections of the
due process clause. See Paul v. Davis, 424 U.S. 693, 701 (1976).
Although Moreno argues that there was a genuine issue of
material fact as to whether there was probable cause for his
arrest, his assertion is, as noted above, incorrect. As Moreno has
not shown how additional discovery would have produced further
evidence to establish a genuine issue of material fact concerning
his arrest, he has not demonstrated that the district court’s stay
of discovery was an abuse of discretion. See Krim v. BancTexas
Group, Inc., 989 F.2d 1435, 1441 (5th Cir. 1993).
AFFIRMED.
3