Blayne Williams, Sr. v. City of Austin, et al, No. 18-50575 (5th Cir. 2019)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 18-50575 Document: 00514828390 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/08/2019 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 18-50575 Summary Calendar FILED February 8, 2019 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk BLAYNE D. WILLIAMS, SR. Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF AUSTIN; ART ACEVEDO, former Chief of Police, in his official and individual capacities; ANN SPIEGEL, in her official and individual capacities; MICHAEL CRONIG, in his official and individual capacities; ANDREA-LEE LLOYD, in her official and individual capacities; BASIL ALI, in his official and individual capacities; CAREY GRACE, in her official capacity, Defendants-Appellees Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 1:17-CV-1213 Before JOLLY, COSTA, and HO, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Blayne Williams sued the City of Austin for the sixth time over his 2015 termination from a job with its police department. The City filed a motion to dismiss. Two months elapsed without Williams filing a response even though 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. * Case: 18-50575 Document: 00514828390 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/08/2019 No. 18-50575 the court’s rules required a response within 14 days of the motion’s filing. Williams also did not respond to the City’s repeated attempts to confer about a scheduling conference. As a result of Williams’s failure to prosecute the case, the district court dismissed it under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). The district court also ordered that Williams not file additional lawsuits without first obtaining permission from the district court or the court of appeals. Williams’s brief is not directed at these rulings, but instead repeats his allegations about wrongdoing by the police chief and other city officials. In any event, we find no abuse of discretion by the district court. AFFIRMED. 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
