Payne v. Revell
Payne v. Revell
Opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
_____________________
No. 99-10083 Summary Calendar _____________________
ALONZO HOWARD PAYNE,
Plaintiff-Appellant, versus
DR. REVELL; SUSAN SOSOBEE, also known as Sosebee; CAPTAIN HARRELL; KENNETH McCOY, Lieutenant; KARA GIBBS, Sergeant; DARREL W. SCHAFFER, Correctional Officer III,
Defendants-Appellees. _________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 2:96l-CV-200 _________________________________________________________________
November 11, 1999
Before JOLLY, JONES, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Alonzo Howard Payne, Texas prisoner #487654, appeals the
district court’s summary judgment dismissal of his
42 U.S.C. § 1983complaint as to the defendants, Dr. Timothy Revell, dietician Susan
Sosebee, and Captain Robert Harrell. Payne contends that he met
his burden of showing the existence of genuine issues for trial
with respect to his claim that these defendants were deliberately
indifferent to his serious medical needs. Payne has also filed a
* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. motion for leave to file a petition for writ of mandamus. The
motion is DENIED.
Payne’s voluminous medical history reflects that he received
extensive medical care for his diabetes. He acknowledges in his
appeal brief that he “is in disagreement with his physician over
the proper type of treatment.” However, Payne’s disagreement with
the extensive medical treatment he received is not sufficient to
raise a genuine issue of material fact. See Norton v. Dimazana,
122 F.3d 286, 292(5th Cir. 1997). Furthermore, defendant Harrell
is entitled to qualified immunity in connection with his efforts to
accommodate Payne’s medical need for food while still maintaining
discipline. See Harris v. Victoria Indep. Sch. Dist.,
168 F.3d 216, 223 (5th Cir. 1999). Accordingly, the district court did not
err in granting summary judgment in favor of defendants Revell,
Sosebee, and Harrell.
Payne has abandoned any claims against any other defendants by
failing to brief adequately any argument in connection therewith.
See Yohey v. Collins,
985 F.2d 222, 224-25(5th Cir. 1993).
AFFIRMED. MOTION DENIED.
2
Reference
- Status
- Unpublished