
    Olga Adriana SARMIENTO, Plaintiff-Appellant v. CITY OF LAREDO, TEXAS; Juan M. Villarreal; Joe E. Baeza Defendants-Appellees
    No. 17-40767 Summary Calendar
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Filed February 23, 2018
    Gay Ellen Gilson, Counsel, Law Office of Gay E. Gilson, Corpus Christi, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellant
    Albert Lopez, Esq., Law Office of Albert Lopez, San Antonio, TX, for Defendants-Appellees
    Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Appellant presents two issues for review in her appeal of the final sumary judgment entered in favor of Officers Villareal and Baeza and the City of Laredo: (1) whether the district court abused its discretion in relying on an erroneous legal premise that a police officer who reasonably believes he has probable cause to seek an arrest warrant is not liable for false arrest when he fails to disclose exculpatory evidence; and (2) whether the City established by undisputed facts it took sufficient steps to protect its citizens from unconstitutional arrests under the Fourth Amendment by putting in place protections to ensure exculpatory evidence is divulged by investigating officers seeking an arrest warrant. Because Appellant requests this court to reverse the grant of summary judgment in favor of the City only, and does not seek reversal of summary judgment in favor of the individual Officers, the first issue is waived. Consequently, this court only considers whether the district court committed error in granting summary judgment for the City. As to this issue, the court has carefully considered the appeal in light of the briefs and pertinent portions of the record. Having done so, we find no error of law or material issue of fact. The district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED for essentially the same reasons articulated by that court. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir, R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R, 47.5.4.
     