Chaney v. Witterstaeter

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
• Decided: September 28, 2000
• Docket: 99-41020
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-41020 Summary Calendar

ANTHONY CHANEY

Plaintiff - Appellant

versus

JEFF WITTERSTAETER, Correctional Officer III; HAZEL KITCHEN, Lieutenant; ORLANDO JOHNSON, Correctional Officer III; SHENANE BOSTON, Counsel; JIMMY ROLLO, Captain; MELTON BROCK, Warden; BRAD DRISKELL, Correctional Officer III; JONATHAN HEATON, Correctional Officer III; TAMMY JOHNSON, Correctional Officer III; UP TAYLOR, Correctional Officer II; HENRY REECE, Sergeant; LELAND HEUSZEL, Warden; JOHN TAYLOR; UNIDENTIFIED MATTENHOFFER, Nurse; JAMES WARREN; ROY SIMON; TAMMY WHITE; VERNON JOHNSON

Defendants - Appellees

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 9:96-CV-111 -------------------- September 26, 2000 Before KING, Chief Judge, and SMITH and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Anthony Chaney (“Chaney”), Texas state prisoner #656210,

filed a pro se lawsuit, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging

that numerous prison officials violated his constitutional rights

under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. The district 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. No. 99-41020 -2-

granted the defendants’ motions for summary judgment and

dismissed Chaney’s claims.

We have reviewed the briefs and the record. We have not

reviewed the amended complaint in case number 9:96-CV-138 because

it is not part of the record. See Sweet Life v. Dole, 876 F.2d

402, 408 (5th Cir. 1989). We conclude that granting summary

judgment in favor of the defendants was correct for essentially

the same reasons set forth by the district court in its

comprehensive opinions. See Chaney v. Witterstaetter, No. 9:96-

CV-111 (E.D. Tex. June 29, 1999); Chaney v. Witterstaetter, No.

9:96-CV-111 (E.D. Tex. August 5, 1999). Chaney’s motion for the

appointment of counsel on appeal is DENIED.

AFFIRMED; MOTION DENIED.