De La Vega v. Prior

Fifth Circuit

De La Vega v. Prior

258 F. App'x 639

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedDecember 11, 2007

Docket06-10329

StatusUnpublished

This text of 258 F. App'x 639 (De La Vega v. Prior) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

De La Vega v. Prior, 258 F. App'x 639 (5th Cir. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM: *

Alfredo De La Vega, Texas inmate # 1050601, filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action claiming that the defendants showed deliberate indifference by failing to protect him from his cellmate. De La Vega appeals following a jury verdict in favor of the defendants.

De La Vega argues that the district court erred in refusing to allow him to introduce at trial a grievance form he submitted following the attack by his cellmate. He contends that defendant Jesus Rodriguez responded to the grievance in a way that would tend to impeach his trial testimony.

A review of the record shows that De La Vega did not make a proffer of what the grievance would have shown. Because De La Vega failed to make an offer of proof as to the excluded evidence, he cannot show error. See Young v. City of New Orleans, 751 F.2d 794, 797 (5th Cir.1985); Mills v. Levy, 537 F.2d 1331, 1333 (5th Cir.1976); Fed.R.Evid. 103(a)(2). Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

*

Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM: *

Alfredo De La Vega, Texas inmate # 1050601, filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action claiming that the defendants showed deliberate indifference by failing to protect him from his cellmate. De La Vega appeals following a jury verdict in favor of the defendants.

De La Vega argues that the district court erred in refusing to allow him to introduce at trial a grievance form he submitted following the attack by his cellmate. He contends that defendant Jesus Rodriguez responded to the grievance in a way that would tend to impeach his trial testimony.

A review of the record shows that De La Vega did not make a proffer of what the grievance would have shown. Because De La Vega failed to make an offer of proof as to the excluded evidence, he cannot show error. See Young v. City of New Orleans, 751 F.2d 794, 797 (5th Cir.1985); Mills v. Levy, 537 F.2d 1331, 1333 (5th Cir.1976); Fed.R.Evid. 103(a)(2). Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

*

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

258 F. App'x 639, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/de-la-vega-v-prior-ca5-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack