Pickett v. Hubert
Pickett v. Hubert
Opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-30486 Conference Calendar
BOBBY RAY PICKETT,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
MICKEY L. HUBERT, In his official capacity; GRAMS, Lieutenant, Individually and in his official capacity; KATHY COLE, Individually and in her official capacity,
Defendants-Appellees.
-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana USDC No. 99-CV-463 -------------------- December 13, 2000
Before DAVIS, STEWART, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Bobby Ray Pickett, Louisiana prisoner # 234122, appeals the
dismissal of his civil rights action under
42 U.S.C. § 1983against Warden Mickey L. Hubert, Medical Director Kathy Cole, and
Lieutenant Cecile Graham. The district court granted summary
judgment in favor of the defendants on Pickett’s claim of
deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs.
* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. 00-30486 -2-
Pickett’s complaint is that he is not receiving Intron
injection treatments for his liver disease caused by Hepatitis C.
Pickett does not allege that his liver condition has been
ignored. He states in his brief that he had a liver biopsy in
April of this year. Contrary to Pickett’s position, the
allegation that he has not received a specific treatment for his
liver disease is a disagreement with the care given, not
deliberate indifference. See Johnson v. Treen,
759 F.2d 1236, 1238(5th Cir. 1985). Pickett has failed to raise a genuine
issue of material fact, and the district court did not err in
granting summary judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c); Little v.
Liquid Air Corp.,
37 F.3d 1069, 1075-76(5th Cir. 1994) (en
banc).
Pickett argues that the district court erred in denying his
motion for a temporary restraining order or preliminary
injunction. This issue is moot as final judgment denying
permanent injunctive relief has been rendered. See Louisiana
World Exposition, Inc. v. Logue,
746 F. 2d 1033, 1038(5th Cir.
1984)(judgment on permanent injunction renders preliminary
injunction moot).
Pickett has not shown exceptional circumstances requiring
the appointment of an attorney. Ulmer v. Chancellor,
691 F.2d 209, 212(5th Cir. 1982). His motion for appointment of counsel
is DENIED.
AFFIRMED; MOTION DENIED.
Reference
- Status
- Unpublished