McBride v. Faulk ( 2001 )

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-40246
Summary Calendar
ISRIEL McBRIDE, JR.,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
B. FAULK, Correctional Officer III, Coffield Unit; M. ARNOLD,
Captain, Coffield Unit; J. SMELLEY, Sergeant, Coffield Unit,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 6:00-CV-119
--------------------
November 7, 2001
Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Isriel McBride, Jr., Texas prisoner # 810817, appeals the
magistrate judge’s judgment dismissing McBride’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983excessive-force action following a bench trial. McBride argues
that the magistrate judge abused his discretion by not allowing
McBride to call two witnesses, that the magistrate judge’s
findings that there was no excessive force and that McBride
suffered no significant injuries were not supported by the
evidence, that the magistrate judge should have appointed McBride
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
No. 01-40246
-2-
an attorney, and that certain photographs and a video tape should
have been introduced at trial.
McBride has not shown that the magistrate judge abused his
discretion by not allowing two witnesses to testify at trial.
See Gibbs v. King, 779 F.2d 1040, 1047 (5th Cir. 1986); Harvey v.
Andrist, 754 F.2d 569, 572 (5th Cir. 1985). With respect to
McBride’s contentions that the evidence did not support the
magistrate judge’s judgment, we decline to reweigh the evidence
and credibility determinations of the magistrate judge, which we
refrain from doing on appeal. See Martin v. Thomas, 973 F.2d
449, 453 n.3 (5th Cir. 1992). The magistrate judge’s decision
not to appoint an attorney for McBride was not an abuse of
discretion. See Cupit v. Jones, 835 F.2d 82, 86 (5th Cir. 1987).
McBride has not shown any error with respect to photographs and
video tape not introduced into evidence at trial, which McBride
has not been submitted to this court with his appeal. See United
States v. Bollman, 141 F.3d 184, 187 (5th Cir. 1998).
AFFIRMED.