The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-31299
Summary Calendar
JOHN GARNER; JOAN GARNER; MARGARET GARNER,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
versus
EDWARD ENGOLIO, Judge, 18th JDC, ET AL.,
Defendants,
JAY C. PENNINGTON, Director of
Greenwell Springs Hospital, ET AL.,
Defendants-Appellees.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Louisiana
USDC No. 91-CV-883
- - - - - - - - - -
July 15, 1996
Before SMITH, BENAVIDES and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
The Garners assert that the district court erred in granting
summary judgment in favor of defendants Pennington, Mendoza, and
Patin. The Garners do not challenge the district court’s
judgment with respect to defendant Landry. This court reviews
*
Pursuant to Local Rule 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
No. 95-31299
- 2 -
the district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo. Weyant
v. Acceptance Ins. Co., 917 F.2d 209, 209-12 (5th Cir. 1990).
The district court did not err in considering the discovery
depositions in granting summary judgment because all inferences
were drawn in the light most favorable to the Garners. Newell v.
Oxford Management, Inc., 912 F.2d 793, 795 (5th Cir. 1990).
The Garners have not produced any evidence to create a
genuine issue of fact that either Pennington, Mendoza, or Patin
is not entitled to qualified immunity. The Garners did not show
that any of the defendants violated a clearly established
constitutional right. Siegert v. Gilley, 500 U.S. 226, 232
(1991).
With respect to Patin, the Garners did not allege a
constitutional violation, rather they simply asserted a state law
tort. Harper v. Harris County, Tex., 21 F.3d 597, 600 (5th Cir.
1994). With respect to Pennington and Mendoza, the Garners have
not rebutted the summary judgment evidence showing that both
Pennington and Mendoza personally examined Joan before certifying
her as gravely disabled. See Little v. Liquid Air Corp., 37 F.3d
1069, 1075 (5th Cir. 1994) (en banc).
AFFIRMED.