Lucas v. City of Ludlow

Fifth Circuit

Lucas v. City of Ludlow

300 F. App'x 336

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedNovember 3, 2008

DocketNo. 07-6317

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 300 F. App'x 336 (Lucas v. City of Ludlow) 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

Lucas v. City of Ludlow, 300 F. App'x 336 (5th Cir. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

JULIA SMITH GIBBONS, Circuit Judge.

Plaintiff-appellant Edward Lucas appeals the decision of the district court to grant summary judgment for defendantsappellees City of Ludlow, building inspector Joe Schutzman, and police officers Raymond Murphy, Benny Johnson, and James Tucker. Lucas sued defendantsappellees under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged violations of his constitutional rights, under 42 U.S.C. § 1985 for an alleged conspiracy to deprive him of his civil rights, and under Kentucky law for claims of defamation and malicious prosecution. After carefully reviewing the record, the applicable law, the parties’ briefs, and having had the benefit of oral argument, we find that the district court’s opinion carefully and correctly sets out the facts and the governing law. Because this court’s issuance of a full opinion would serve no jurisprudential purpose and would be duplicative, we affirm on the basis of the district court’s well-reasoned order of September 20, 2007, granting summary judgment to defendants-appellees.

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

JULIA SMITH GIBBONS, Circuit Judge.

Plaintiff-appellant Edward Lucas appeals the decision of the district court to grant summary judgment for defendantsappellees City of Ludlow, building inspector Joe Schutzman, and police officers Raymond Murphy, Benny Johnson, and James Tucker. Lucas sued defendantsappellees under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged violations of his constitutional rights, under 42 U.S.C. § 1985 for an alleged conspiracy to deprive him of his civil rights, and under Kentucky law for claims of defamation and malicious prosecution. After carefully reviewing the record, the applicable law, the parties’ briefs, and having had the benefit of oral argument, we find that the district court’s opinion carefully and correctly sets out the facts and the governing law. Because this court’s issuance of a full opinion would serve no jurisprudential purpose and would be duplicative, we affirm on the basis of the district court’s well-reasoned order of September 20, 2007, granting summary judgment to defendants-appellees.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

300 F. App'x 336, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lucas-v-city-of-ludlow-ca5-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack