Martin v. City of Alexandria, et al, No. 05-31006 (5th Cir. 2006)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT _______________________ F I L E D July 19, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk No. 05-31006 Summary Calendar _______________________ FOREST C. MARTIN, SR., on behalf of Forest C. Martin, on behalf of Neal Nassor Martin Plaintiff-Appellant, versus CITY OF ALEXANDRIA; ET AL., Defendants, CITY OF ALEXANDRIA; ROBERT T. DISTEFANO, in his official capacity; STEVE BANKSTON; DOUGLAS PRESTRIDGE Defendants-Appellees. _________________________________________________________________ On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana, Alexandria No. 1:03-CV-01282 ________________________________________________________________ Before JONES, Chief Judge, and BARKSDALE and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Forest C. Martin, Sr. brought a pro se action claiming various civil rights violations by the City of Alexandria and several of its police officers. The alleged violations occurred during an investigation by the officers of an anonymous tip about a suspected burglary at a car dealership where Martin and his sons ( the Martins ) were performing janitorial services. * During the 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. investigation, the officers briefly held the Martins at gunpoint and questioned them regarding their right to be on the premises. Sympathetic as we misidentified as subsequently held might be burglars at to by the the gunpoint Martins for having been informer, and investigation, the anonymous during the district court thoroughly examined their complaints, and we find no reversible error in the court s findings of fact and conclusions of law. We therefore AFFIRM the final judgment of the district court essentially for the reasons stated in its opinion. 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.
