
    Allen Dewayne BATES, Plaintiff—Appellant v. Joe L. OROZCO, Defendant—Appellee.
    No. 10-10490
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    April 29, 2011.
    Allen Dewayne Bates, Amarillo, TX, pro se.
    Mark Whitney McBrayer, Crenshaw, Dupree & Milam, L.L.P., Lubbock, TX, for Defendant-Appellee.
    Before BARKSDALE, DENNIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Proceeding pro se and informa pauper-is, Allen Dewayne Bates appeals the district court’s dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint, with prejudice, by granting Officer Joe L. Orozco’s motion for summary judgment. Bates contends the district court erred in ruling that Officer Orozco was entitled to qualified immunity. Bates claims Officer Orozco violated Bates’ Fourth Amendment rights because there was no probable cause justifying his initial detention, subsequent searches, and arrest.

A summary judgment is reviewed de novo. E.g., Xtreme Lashes, LLC v. Xtended Beauty, Inc., 576 F.3d 221, 226 (5th Cir.2009). When defendant asserts qualified immunity, the court must determine whether plaintiff presents a violation of a statutory or constitutional right and, if he does, “whether that right was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the defendant’s alleged misconduct”. Ontiveros v. City of Rosenberg, 564 F.3d 379, 382 (5th Cir. 2009).

Bates fails to show he was subjected to an unlawful detention, search, or arrest. Officer Orozco had articulable facts supporting his reasonable suspicion that justified Bates’ initial detention. See United States v. Michelletti, 13 F.3d 838, 840 (5th Cir.1994) (en banc). Additionally, Officer Orozco’s actions following the initial detention were reasonably related to the circumstances justifying it. See United States v. Brigham, 382 F.3d 500, 506-07 (5th Cir. 2004). Because Bates did not show a violation of the claimed constitutional right, the district court properly granted summary judgment on ruling that Officer Orozco was entitled to qualified immunity. See Ontiveros, 564 F.3d at 385.

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       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     