IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT _______________

m 98-20374 _______________

ROGER LEE DICKERSON,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

VERSUS

OFFICER CHILDERS; BENJAMIN (UNKNOWN); GERALD A. CURTIS; GEORGE C. WEBSTER; MYERS, COUNSELOR; RODGERS, NURSE; INFIRMARY STAFF; BOBBY M. VINCENT; D.E. BRYANT, CAPTAIN; GOODROW, OFFICER; GRIGSBY, OFFICER; THOMPSON, OFFICER; ROBERSON, OFFICER; HARRISON, OFFICER; BREWSTER, MAJOR; MULLIGAN, NURSE; WHITEFIELD, OFFICER; JOHNSON, NURSE; WATSON, OFFICER; JACKSON, OFFICER; STANDLEY, OFFICER; M. COUNTZ, WARDEN; ROBERT L. OTT; ERNEST A. CHASTAIN; PEREZ, OFFICER; BOYD WALKER; BRYAN D. BUCK; GAYLOR, SERGEANT; ROWLETT, LIEUTENANT; INTERNAL AFFAIRS DIVISION OF THE TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION; DEPARTMENT GRIEVANCE COORDINATORS; KENT RAMSEY; WAYNE SCOTT; CHARLES ALEXANDER, DOCTOR; JAMES A. COLLINS, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION; JAMES A. LYNAUGH; TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE; KEVIN BENJAMIN,

Defendants-Appellees. _________________________

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas m H-94-CV-319 _________________________ February 8, 2002 Before SMITH and DEMOSS, Circuit Judges, and DUPLANTIER, District Judge.*

PER CURIAM:**

Roger Dickerson appeals several orders dis- posing of his

suit against over forty employees of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. His complaint alleges con- stitutional and state law violations stemming from four events: (1) the use of excessive force to restrain him after he failed to follow an order from a guard, (2) his medical care in treating the injuries sustained in the excessive force incident, (3) his conditions of confinement in solitary following the excessive force incident, and (4) the conduct of the disciplinary hearing on the excessive force incident. In a series of four orders, the district court granted summary judgment to all defendants.

We have reviewed the briefs and applicable portions of the record. We see no reversible error, so the judgment is AFFIRMED, primarily for the reasons given by the district court in its comprehensive orders entered on January 16, 1996; January 15, 1997; September 10, 1997; and March 30, 1998.

* District Judge of the Eastern District of Louisiana, sitting by designation. ** 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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.

2