William Pierce v. Rick Thaler

Fifth Circuit

William Pierce v. Rick Thaler

577 F. App'x 296

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedAugust 7, 2014

Docket13-10127

StatusUnpublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 577 F. App'x 296 (William Pierce v. Rick Thaler) 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

William Pierce v. Rick Thaler, 577 F. App'x 296 (5th Cir. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM: *

Defendant-Appellant William Boyd Pierce, Texas prisoner # 1208957, appeals the summary judgment dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim for injunctive relief against Dr. Mack Hughes, a prison dentist. Pierce contends that Dr. Hughes acted with deliberate indifference by refusing to provide him with dentures.

In this court, Pierce has expressly waived his claim for compensatory relief against Dr. Hughes, so we have not considered that claim. Neither have we considered the dismissal of the remaining defendants and other claims that Pierce raised in the district court because he has abandoned any claims of error by failing to brief a challenge to these dismissals. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir.1993).

We review the grant of a motion for summary judgment de novo, applying the same standard as the district court. Nickell v. Beau View of Biloxi, L.L.C., 636 *297 F.3d 752, 754 (5th Cir.2011). Summary-judgment is appropriate if the record discloses “that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a).

Dr. Hughes’s summary judgment evidence shows that he provided dental treatment to Pierce, but was precluded by prison policy from furnishing the dentures that Pierce wanted and believed he was entitled to receive. The evidence of treatment shows that Dr. Hughes was not deliberately indifferent to Pierce’s serious medical needs, even though Pierce disagreed with the treatment and was not satisfied with Dr. Hughes’s failure to provide dentures. See Gobert v. Caldwell, 463 F.3d 339, 346 (5th Cir.2006); Banuelos v. McFarland, 41 F.3d 232, 235 (5th Cir.1995).

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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.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

Defendant-Appellant William Boyd Pierce, Texas prisoner # 1208957, appeals the summary judgment dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim for injunctive relief against Dr. Mack Hughes, a prison dentist. Pierce contends that Dr. Hughes acted with deliberate indifference by refusing to provide him with dentures.

In this court, Pierce has expressly waived his claim for compensatory relief against Dr. Hughes, so we have not considered that claim. Neither have we considered the dismissal of the remaining defendants and other claims that Pierce raised in the district court because he has abandoned any claims of error by failing to brief a challenge to these dismissals. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir.1993).

We review the grant of a motion for summary judgment de novo, applying the same standard as the district court. Nickell v. Beau View of Biloxi, L.L.C., 636 *297 F.3d 752, 754 (5th Cir.2011). Summary-judgment is appropriate if the record discloses “that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a).

Dr. Hughes’s summary judgment evidence shows that he provided dental treatment to Pierce, but was precluded by prison policy from furnishing the dentures that Pierce wanted and believed he was entitled to receive. The evidence of treatment shows that Dr. Hughes was not deliberately indifferent to Pierce’s serious medical needs, even though Pierce disagreed with the treatment and was not satisfied with Dr. Hughes’s failure to provide dentures. See Gobert v. Caldwell, 463 F.3d 339, 346 (5th Cir.2006); Banuelos v. McFarland, 41 F.3d 232, 235 (5th Cir.1995).

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)

577 F. App'x 296, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/william-pierce-v-rick-thaler-ca5-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack