Samuel Daugherty v. Hien Luong

Fifth Circuit

Samuel Daugherty v. Hien Luong

485 F. App'x 696

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedAugust 10, 2012

Docket11-41383

StatusUnpublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 485 F. App'x 696 (Samuel Daugherty v. Hien Luong) 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

Samuel Daugherty v. Hien Luong, 485 F. App'x 696 (5th Cir. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM: *

Samuel K. Daugherty, Texas prisoner # 814455, appeals the summary judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against a prison dentist. Daugherty contended that he was entitled to dentures and that the defendant inflicted cruel and unusual punishment by refusing to provide them.

Qualified immunity was not an available defense in this action because Daugherty asked only for declaratory and injunctive relief. See Mayfield v. Texas Dept. Of Criminal Justice, 529 F.3d 599, 606 (5th Cir.2008). Nonetheless, summary judgment was proper.

The defendant’s summary judgment evidence showed that he provided extensive dental treatment to Daugherty but was precluded by prison dental policy from providing the dentures Daugherty wanted and believed he was entitled to receive. The evidence of treatment showed that the defendant was not deliberately indifferent to Daugherty’s serious medical needs, even though Daugherty disagreed with the treatment and was obviously not satisfied by it. See Gobert v. Caldwell, 463 F.3d 339, 346 (5th Cir.2006); Banuelos v. McFarland, 41 F.3d 232, 235 (5th Cir.1995). To the extent Daugherty might show some contested issues of fact, they are not issues of material fact because, even if viewed in his favor, those facts would not establish, in light of the uncontested facts, “an unnecessary and wanton *697 infliction of pain” that is “sufficiently harmful to evidence deliberate indifference to serious medical needs.” Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 105-06, 97 S.Ct. 285, 50 L.Ed.2d 251 (1976) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); see Fed. R.Civ.P. 56(a); Duffie v. United States, 600 F.3d 362, 371 (5th Cir.2010).

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

*

Pursuant to 5th Cut. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.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: *

Samuel K. Daugherty, Texas prisoner # 814455, appeals the summary judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against a prison dentist. Daugherty contended that he was entitled to dentures and that the defendant inflicted cruel and unusual punishment by refusing to provide them.

Qualified immunity was not an available defense in this action because Daugherty asked only for declaratory and injunctive relief. See Mayfield v. Texas Dept. Of Criminal Justice, 529 F.3d 599, 606 (5th Cir.2008). Nonetheless, summary judgment was proper.

The defendant’s summary judgment evidence showed that he provided extensive dental treatment to Daugherty but was precluded by prison dental policy from providing the dentures Daugherty wanted and believed he was entitled to receive. The evidence of treatment showed that the defendant was not deliberately indifferent to Daugherty’s serious medical needs, even though Daugherty disagreed with the treatment and was obviously not satisfied by it. See Gobert v. Caldwell, 463 F.3d 339, 346 (5th Cir.2006); Banuelos v. McFarland, 41 F.3d 232, 235 (5th Cir.1995). To the extent Daugherty might show some contested issues of fact, they are not issues of material fact because, even if viewed in his favor, those facts would not establish, in light of the uncontested facts, “an unnecessary and wanton *697 infliction of pain” that is “sufficiently harmful to evidence deliberate indifference to serious medical needs.” Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 105-06, 97 S.Ct. 285, 50 L.Ed.2d 251 (1976) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); see Fed. R.Civ.P. 56(a); Duffie v. United States, 600 F.3d 362, 371 (5th Cir.2010).

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

*

Pursuant to 5th Cut. 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)

485 F. App'x 696, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/samuel-daugherty-v-hien-luong-ca5-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack