Ynostrosa v. Ugaz
Ynostrosa v. Ugaz
Opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-10364
FERNANDO P. YNOSTROSA,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
JORGE E. UGAZ, Dr.; MCNEE, Nurse,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 7:96-CV-46-X
--------------------
November 17, 1999
Before DAVIS, EMILIO M. GARZA, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
IT IS ORDERED that Texas state prisoner # 432319 Fernando P.
Ynostrosa’s appeal from the district court’s denial of leave to
appeal in forma pauperis (IFP) is DENIED, because the appeal
lacks arguable merit and is therefore frivolous. See Baugh v.
Taylor,
117 F.3d 197, 202(5th Cir. 1997); Howard v. King,
707 F.2d 215, 219-20(5th Cir. 1983). Because the appeal is
frivolous, IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the appeal is DISMISSED and
* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. No. 99-10364 -2-
Ynostrosa’s motion for an extension of time in which to file a
formally correct brief is DENIED.
In his
42 U.S.C. § 1983civil rights action, Ynostrosa
alleged that sole appellee Dr. Jorge E. Ugaz, the medical
director of his prison unit, denied him adequate medical
treatment. Ynostrosa asserted that Dr. Ugaz acted with
deliberate and callous indifference to Ynostrosa’s serious
medical needs by refusing to refer him for surgery to repair his
perforated eardrum and by refusing to prescribe ibuprofen in
strong enough doses to alleviate his ear pain.
The district court granted summary judgment to Dr. Ugaz,
based on his affidavit and other evidence. Ynostrosa contends
that the district court reversibly erred, because there are
genuine issues of material fact concerning his claims. The lack
of arguable merit of Ynostrosa’s contentions is demonstrated by
the district court’s memorandum opinion. Ynostrosa v. Ugaz, No.
7:96-CV-46-X (N.D. Tex., March 5, 1999)(unpublished).
IFP DENIED; MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME DENIED; APPEAL
DISMISSED.
Reference
- Status
- Unpublished