James Warren Bright v. Fred Early

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: January 6, 2011
• Docket: 11-10-00031-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

Opinion filed January 6, 2011

                                                                       In The

  Eleventh Court of Appeals

                                                                   __________

                                                         No. 11-10-00031-CV

                             JAMES WARREN BRIGHT, Appellant

                                                             V.

                                   FRED EARLY, ET AL, Appellee

                                   On Appeal from the 106th District Court

                                                          Dawson County, Texas

                                                Trial Court Cause No. 09-07-18185

                                            M E M O R A N D U M   O P I N I O N

            James W. Bright sought $600,000 in damages from Fred Early, James Ramsey, and Richard Aynes.  Bright alleged that the defendants had discriminated against him because of his mental disability.  He further alleged that he was placed in a general population cell; denied toilet paper, soap, a razor, and a shower; and was once given the wrong medication while he was confined in the Smith Unit of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice - Institutional Division and while the defendants were employees of TDCJ - ID.  The trial court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss, found that Bright had not complied with the requirements of Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. §§ 14.001-.014 (Vernon 2002), determined that Bright’s claims were frivolous, and dismissed his action.  We affirm.

            On appeal, Bright contends that the trial court erred in dismissing his claims.  We note that the record reflects that Bright failed to comply with the requirements of Sections 14.004-.005.  Moreover, Bright failed to state an actionable claim.         All of Bright’s arguments on appeal have been considered, and each is overruled.  Bright has not established that the trial court abused its discretion.

            The order of the trial court is affirmed.

                                                                                                PER CURIAM

January 6, 2011

Panel consists of:  Wright, C.J.,

McCall, J., and Strange, J.