Barnes v. Graves
Barnes v. Graves
Opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-40296 Conference Calendar
HOWARD LEE BARNES,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
JONATHAN R. GRAVES, Guard, Michael Unit; DUWAYNE A. BERDING, Sergeant, Michael Unit; ERIC M. DUNN, Guard, Michael Unit; JOE E. BOWSER, Guard, Michael Unit; SHARON A. HOFFMAN, Nurse, Michael Unit,
Defendants-Appellees.
-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 6:97-CV-880 --------------------
October 19, 1999
Before JONES, SMITH, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Texas prisoner Howard Lee Barnes, No. 647284, appeals the
magistrate judge’s dismissal** of his complaint on the basis that
it lacked an arguable legal basis.
The magistrate judge found that defendants Jonathan Graves,
Duwayne Berding, Joe Bowser, and Sharon Hoffman had not been
* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. ** The parties proceeded before the magistrate judge pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 636(c). No. 99-40296 -2-
deliberately indifferent to Barnes’ serious medical need and that
Barnes did not suffer substantial harm as the result of defendant
Eric Dunn’s indifference to Barnes’ medical problem, because
Dunn’s dereliction resulted in only a two-hour delay in medical
treatment. Mendoza v. Lynaugh,
989 F.2d 191, 195(5th Cir.
1993).
Barnes does not dispute the magistrate judge’s determination
that defendants Graves, Berding, Bowser, and Hoffman were not
deliberately indifferent to his serious medical need. Thus, he
has failed to show that the dismissal of the complaint as to
those defendants was an abuse of discretion. Siglar v.
Hightower,
112 F.3d 191, 193(5th Cir. 1997). However, Barnes
argues that his complaint should be reinstated because he
suffered a hearing loss due to an alleged two-week delay in
medical treatment. As Barnes does not dispute that defendant
Dunn delayed his medical treatment by only two hours, not two
weeks, he has failed to show that the magistrate judge abused her
discretion by dismissing the complaint as to defendant Dunn.
AFFIRMED.
Reference
- Status
- Unpublished