James Harris v. Christopher Epps, Commissioner, et

Fifth Circuit

James Harris v. Christopher Epps, Commissioner, et

523 F. App'x 275

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedJune 14, 2013

Docket12-60701

StatusUnpublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 523 F. App'x 275 (James Harris v. Christopher Epps, Commissioner, et) 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

James Harris v. Christopher Epps, Commissioner, et, 523 F. App'x 275 (5th Cir. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM: *

In this matter tried by consent to a magistrate judge (“MJ”), James Harris, Mississippi prisoner #67709, appeals a summary judgment on, and dismissal of, his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit seeking redress for alleged deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. A summary judgment, which we review de novo, Xtreme Lashes, LLC v. Xtended Beauty, Inc., 576 F.3d 221, 226 (5th Cir.2009), “shall” be entered “if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” FED. R. CIV. P. 56(a).

Harris contends that the defendants acted with deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs by denying him treatment for his Hepatitis C infection and back problems. The record shows that Harris did receive treatment for those ailments and that his claim amounts to a disagreement with the treatment and a desire for more. That is not enough for a viable claim of deliberate indifference. See Domino v. Tex. Dep’t of Crim. Justice, Institutional Div., 239 F.3d 752, 756 (5th Cir.2001); Banuelos v. McFarland, 41 F.3d 232, 235 (5th Cir.1995) (per curiam).

To the extent Harris argues that certain defendants were not entitled to qualified immunity, there is no error, because the MJ did not consider whether those defendants were entitled to that immunity. Similarly, Harris’s conclusional assertions attacking the MJ’s discovery and injunction rulings do not show that the MJ abused his discretion in denying the disputed motions. See Wiwa v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., 392 F.3d 812, 817 (5th Cir.2004); Women’s Med. Ctr. of Nw. Houston v. Bell, 248 F.3d 411, 418-19 (5th Cir.2001).

Because Harris has shown no error, the judgment is 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: *

In this matter tried by consent to a magistrate judge (“MJ”), James Harris, Mississippi prisoner #67709, appeals a summary judgment on, and dismissal of, his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit seeking redress for alleged deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. A summary judgment, which we review de novo, Xtreme Lashes, LLC v. Xtended Beauty, Inc., 576 F.3d 221, 226 (5th Cir.2009), “shall” be entered “if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” FED. R. CIV. P. 56(a).

Harris contends that the defendants acted with deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs by denying him treatment for his Hepatitis C infection and back problems. The record shows that Harris did receive treatment for those ailments and that his claim amounts to a disagreement with the treatment and a desire for more. That is not enough for a viable claim of deliberate indifference. See Domino v. Tex. Dep’t of Crim. Justice, Institutional Div., 239 F.3d 752, 756 (5th Cir.2001); Banuelos v. McFarland, 41 F.3d 232, 235 (5th Cir.1995) (per curiam).

To the extent Harris argues that certain defendants were not entitled to qualified immunity, there is no error, because the MJ did not consider whether those defendants were entitled to that immunity. Similarly, Harris’s conclusional assertions attacking the MJ’s discovery and injunction rulings do not show that the MJ abused his discretion in denying the disputed motions. See Wiwa v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., 392 F.3d 812, 817 (5th Cir.2004); Women’s Med. Ctr. of Nw. Houston v. Bell, 248 F.3d 411, 418-19 (5th Cir.2001).

Because Harris has shown no error, the judgment is 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)

523 F. App'x 275, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/james-harris-v-christopher-epps-commissioner-et-ca5-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack