Blayne Williams, Sr. v. City of Austin, et al, No. 18-50344 (5th Cir. 2018)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 18-50344 Document: 00514730471 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/20/2018 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 18-50344 Summary Calendar United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED November 20, 2018 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk BLAYNE D. WILLIAMS, SR. Plaintiff-Appellant v. CITY OF AUSTIN; AUSTIN POLICE DEPARTMENT; MARGO FRASIER, in her official and individual capacities; FRED FLETCHER, in his official capacity; ART ACEVEDO, in his official and individual capacities; JOHN DOE; JANE DOE; AUSTIN POLICE DEPARTMENT - ART ACEVEDO, in his official and individual capacities; CHATTANOOGA POLICE DEPARTMENT; FRED FLETCHER, in his individual capacity Defendants-Appellees Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 1:16-CV-1338 Before SMITH, WIENER, and WILLETT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Plaintiff-Appellant, Blayne D. Williams, Sr., proceeding pro se, is before us for the second time in this case, now under Rule 60(b). This time he seeks to overturn the district court’s March 2018 Order denying his Motion for 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 18-50344 Document: 00514730471 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/20/2018 No. 18-50344 Relief from Judgment. At the core of both of Williams’s appeals has been the rejection of his contention that the statute of limitations should not have been employed to dismiss his lawsuit because of the “Continuous Violations Doctrine” which prevents application of the time bar. We have reviewed the record on appeal, including the briefs of the parties and the district court’s March 26, 2018 Order denying Williams’s Motion for Relief from Judgment, and we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying that motion or in any other way. The abovesaid Order is, therefore, 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.