Hyatt v. Sewell

Fifth Circuit

Hyatt v. Sewell

197 F. App'x 370

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedSeptember 7, 2006

Docket05-41281

StatusUnpublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 197 F. App'x 370 (Hyatt v. Sewell) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hyatt v. Sewell, 197 F. App'x 370 (5th Cir. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM: *

Adam David Hyatt, Texas prisoner # 776998, appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Drs. Edwin Sewell and Sammy Wood and the University of Texas Medical Branch (UTMB). We affirm the judgment of the district court.

We review de novo the district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo. Cousin v. Small, 325 F.3d 627, 637 (5th Cir.2003). Summary judgment is proper “if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). Prison officials violate the constitutional prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment when they demonstrate deliberate indifference to a prisoner’s serious medical needs, constituting an unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain. Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 297, 111 S.Ct. 2321, 115 L.Ed.2d 271 (1991).

Hyatt began a treatment plan in December 2002, which included a recommendation for a lower partial denture. Over the course of the next three years, Hyatt received a number of fillings as well as other treatment. Although there were some delays in his treatment regarding his dentures, the summary judgment evidence shows that Hyatt was seen regularly, that treatment was provided, and that any delays were the result of at most negligence rather than any deliberate indifference to Hyatt’s serious medical needs.

We further affirm the summary judgment in favor of UTMB; as a state agency, UTMB is not a person for purposes of § 1983. See Will v. Mich. Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71, 109 S.Ct. 2304, 105 L.Ed.2d 45 (1989). In addition, absent any Eighth Amendment violation by any UTMB personnel, there can be no liability on the part of UTMB.

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.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM: *

Adam David Hyatt, Texas prisoner # 776998, appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Drs. Edwin Sewell and Sammy Wood and the University of Texas Medical Branch (UTMB). We affirm the judgment of the district court.

We review de novo the district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo. Cousin v. Small, 325 F.3d 627, 637 (5th Cir.2003). Summary judgment is proper “if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). Prison officials violate the constitutional prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment when they demonstrate deliberate indifference to a prisoner’s serious medical needs, constituting an unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain. Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 297, 111 S.Ct. 2321, 115 L.Ed.2d 271 (1991).

Hyatt began a treatment plan in December 2002, which included a recommendation for a lower partial denture. Over the course of the next three years, Hyatt received a number of fillings as well as other treatment. Although there were some delays in his treatment regarding his dentures, the summary judgment evidence shows that Hyatt was seen regularly, that treatment was provided, and that any delays were the result of at most negligence rather than any deliberate indifference to Hyatt’s serious medical needs.

We further affirm the summary judgment in favor of UTMB; as a state agency, UTMB is not a person for purposes of § 1983. See Will v. Mich. Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71, 109 S.Ct. 2304, 105 L.Ed.2d 45 (1989). In addition, absent any Eighth Amendment violation by any UTMB personnel, there can be no liability on the part of UTMB.

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

197 F. App'x 370, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hyatt-v-sewell-ca5-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack