Ariel v. Dao
Ariel v. Dao
Opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-21070 Summary Calendar
GLENN L. ARIEL,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
HUNG T. DAO; MIKE KIRKWOOD; JOSEPH C. ROELL; V. FURMAN; DR. JOHNSON; JACKIE LAPPIN,
Defendants-Appellees.
- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. H-97-CV-4248 - - - - - - - - - - October 29, 2001
Before JONES, SMITH, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Glenn L. Ariel, Texas prisoner # 682838, appeals from the
district court’s dismissal of his
42 U.S.C. § 1983complaint for
failure to state a claim. Ariel’s timely filed notice of appeal
vests this court with jurisdiction to review the district court’s
dismissal of his complaint.
28 U.S.C. § 1291.
Ariel’s claim that the screening proceedings of
28 U.S.C. §§ 1915, 1915A are unconstitutional is without merit. See, e.g.,
Martin v. Scott,
156 F.3d 578, 580 n.2 (5th Cir. 1988).
* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. 00-21070 -2-
Notwithstanding Ariel’s argument to the contrary, these screening
procedures allow the district court to forego service on all or
some of the defendants pending its review of the entire
complaint. See
28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2), 1915A(a). We have
reviewed the record, including Ariel’s medical records, and hold
that the district court did not err in dismissing Ariel’s
deliberate indifference claims against Dr. Hung Dao and Dr. Mike
Kirkwood. See Stewart v. Murphy,
174 F.3d 530, 534(5th Cir.
1999); Banuelos v. McFarland,
41 F.3d 232, 234-35(5th Cir.
1995). Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED.
Reference
- Status
- Unpublished