Wilson v. City of New Orleans ( 2002 )

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-30135
Summary Calendar
HENRY WILSON,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
THE CITY OF NEW ORLEANS; CITY OF NEW ORLEANS DEPARTMENT OF
HEALTH; CITY OF NEW ORLEANS DEPARTMENT OF SAFETY AND PERMITS,
Defendants-Appellees.
_________________________________________________________________
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana
(No. 00-CV-3115-R)
_________________________________________________________________
October 15, 2002
Before BARKSDALE, DEMOSS, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Henry Wilson appeals a summary judgment dismissing his 42
U.S.C. § 1983 action against the City of New Orleans and two of its
departments (collectively “the City”). (He does not contest the
dismissal of his state-law claims.) Wilson contends the City
denied him due process of law by failing to provide sufficient
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
notice of a hearing and adjudication concerning the demolition of
his property in New Orleans.
We review a grant of summary judgment de novo. E.g., Amburgey
v. Corhart Refractories Corp., 936 F.2d 805, 809 (5th Cir. 1991).
Such judgment is proper when, viewing the evidence in the light
most favorable to the non-movant, “‘there is no genuine issue as to
any material fact and ... the moving party is entitled to [a]
judgment as a matter of law.’” Id. (quoting FED. R. CIV. P. 56(c)).
Wilson alleged no specific facts that, if accepted as true,
would establish a municipal policy or custom to provide inadequate
notice, as he must do to establish municipal liability under 42
U.S.C. § 1983. See, e.g., Johnson v. Moore, 958 F.2d 92, 93-94
(5th Cir. 1992). Allegations of a policy or custom and its
relationship to a constitutional violation cannot be conclusional
but must contain specific facts. See, e.g., Spiller v. City of
Texas City, Police Dep’t, 130 F.3d 162, 167 (5th Cir. 1997) (citing
Fraire v. Arlington, 957 F.2d 1268, 1278 (5th Cir.), cert. denied
506 U.S. 973 (1992)).
Nor did Wilson offer any summary-judgment evidence relevant to
a policy or custom. He contends that a single decision may
constitute a policy or custom, but he does not explain how that
principle applies here. Instead, he asserts that “various
witnesses” will establish “a clear and continuing series of
practices” that violate constitutional due-process requirements.
Needless to say, such conclusions do not avoid dismissal. See
Spiller, 130 F.3d at 167. Because Wilson fails to show a policy
or custom, the judgment is AFFIRMED. See Bickford v. Int’l
Speedway Corp., 654 F.2d 1028, 1031 (5th Cir. 1981) (appellate
court may affirm “on any grounds, regardless of whether those
grounds were used by the district court”).
AFFIRMED
3