Smith v. Johnson
Smith v. Johnson
Opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-40037 Conference Calendar
ALPHONSO SMITH,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
R JOHNSON, Correctional Officer III, Coffield Unit; BELINDA MAPLE, Sergeant, Coffield Unit,
Defendants-Appellees.
-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 6:98-CV-488 -------------------- April 12, 2000
Before WIENER, DeMOSS, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Alphonso Smith, Texas prisoner #621036, appeals from the
dismissal of his civil rights action as frivolous and for failure
to state a claim. Smith contends that he should have been
allowed to amend his complaint before it was dismissed; that the
defendants, a correctional officer and a sergeant, were
deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs; and that
* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. 99-40037 -2-
he should not have been required to exhaust his prison
administrative remedies because he sought damages only and could
not obtain damages through Texas’s remedies procedures.
The magistrate judge held a hearing pursuant to Spears v.
McCotter,
766 F.2d 179(5th Cir. 1985), to bring into focus the
factual basis of Smith’s claims. Because the magistrate judge
held a Spears hearing, Smith need not have been allowed to amend
his complaint.
Smith’s complaint and his testimony at the Spears hearing
did not indicate that the defendants were deliberately
indifferent to his serious medical needs. Estelle v. Gamble,
429 U.S. 97, 106(1976). Smith’s contention regarding exhaustion is
without merit. The complaint was dismissed on its merits.
AFFIRMED.
Reference
- Status
- Unpublished