Miller v. Kalmanov

Fifth Circuit

Miller v. Kalmanov

252 F. App'x 680

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedOctober 30, 2007

Docket06-10517

StatusUnpublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 252 F. App'x 680 (Miller v. Kalmanov) 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

Miller v. Kalmanov, 252 F. App'x 680 (5th Cir. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM: *

Martin Milton Miller, Jr., Texas prisoner # 634502, appeals from the district court’s grant of the defendants’ motion for summary judgment and the dismissal of his pro se, in forma pauperis (IFP), 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. We review de novo the district court’s grant of summary judgment. See Cousin v. Small, 325 F.3d 627, 637 (5th Cir.2003).

Miller asserts that, for a period of five years, defendants Kalmanov and Wilson exercised deliberate indifference to the *681 treatment of his hemorrhoid condition. The record reflects that Miller was treated for his hemorrhoids, including two separate visits with specialists. Miller’s complaints regarding his treatment constitute disagreement with the method of treatment that was provided and are non-aetionable under the Eighth Amendment. See Varnado v. Lynaugh, 920 F.2d 320, 321 (5th Cir.1991).

Miller also asserts that the defendants lied about his medical condition to retaliate against Miller for filing grievances concerning the method of treatment that he was receiving. He contends that Wilson and Kalmanov engaged in retaliatory practices by consistently prescribing hydrocortisone cream although it caused Miller burning pain. Miller has not alleged “a chronology of events from which retaliation may plausibly be inferred.” See Tighe v. Wall, 100 F.3d 41, 42 (5th Cir.1996). He has not shown that but for a retaliatory motive, the defendants would not have prescribed hydrocortisone cream to treat his hemorrhoid condition. See id. The district court did not err in granting the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. See Cousin, 325 F.3d at 637.

Miller has abandoned his conspiracy and deliberate indifference claims against defendant Potter. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir.1993). Accordingly, the judgment of the district court 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.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: *

Martin Milton Miller, Jr., Texas prisoner # 634502, appeals from the district court’s grant of the defendants’ motion for summary judgment and the dismissal of his pro se, in forma pauperis (IFP), 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. We review de novo the district court’s grant of summary judgment. See Cousin v. Small, 325 F.3d 627, 637 (5th Cir.2003).

Miller asserts that, for a period of five years, defendants Kalmanov and Wilson exercised deliberate indifference to the *681 treatment of his hemorrhoid condition. The record reflects that Miller was treated for his hemorrhoids, including two separate visits with specialists. Miller’s complaints regarding his treatment constitute disagreement with the method of treatment that was provided and are non-aetionable under the Eighth Amendment. See Varnado v. Lynaugh, 920 F.2d 320, 321 (5th Cir.1991).

Miller also asserts that the defendants lied about his medical condition to retaliate against Miller for filing grievances concerning the method of treatment that he was receiving. He contends that Wilson and Kalmanov engaged in retaliatory practices by consistently prescribing hydrocortisone cream although it caused Miller burning pain. Miller has not alleged “a chronology of events from which retaliation may plausibly be inferred.” See Tighe v. Wall, 100 F.3d 41, 42 (5th Cir.1996). He has not shown that but for a retaliatory motive, the defendants would not have prescribed hydrocortisone cream to treat his hemorrhoid condition. See id. The district court did not err in granting the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. See Cousin, 325 F.3d at 637.

Miller has abandoned his conspiracy and deliberate indifference claims against defendant Potter. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir.1993). Accordingly, the judgment of the district court 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)

252 F. App'x 680, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/miller-v-kalmanov-ca5-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack