Perkins v. Blackwell ( 2000 )

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 98-40798
(Summary Calendar)
ROLAND PERKINS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
MELISSA B. DIAL, Medical Nurse; JANET M. CARLOW;
RICHARD HALL; BARBARA L. HANKINS; JUDY FARIS;
WAYNE KELLER, Doctor; KIMERLY C. MALDONADO;
MARIA E. RODRIGUEZ; ROBERT ROWLAND; DANNY V. PEREZ;
DAVID M.BLACKWELL; DENNIS S. TORRES, JR.;
MORRIS G. DODSON; SANDRA S. LOPEZ;
ROY D. GLOVER, JR.; FRANCES HAROLD,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
(C-96-CV-526)
--------------------
October 4, 2000
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Plaintiff-Appellant Perkins appeals the district court’s
partial dismissal as frivolous and partial grant of summary
judgment in favor of the defendants in his civil rights action
under 42 U. S.C. § 1983. He argues that he was denied treatment
and medication for his psychological disorders because he is
African-American; was denied non-steel-toed boots even though they
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
had been prescribed by a doctor; was falsely accused and found
guilty of disciplinary offenses in retaliation for the grievances
and lawsuits he has filed and because he is African-American; and
was subjected to the intentional infliction of emotional distress.
The district court did not err in dismissing Perkins’s claims for
money damages against all of the defendants in their official
capacities because those claims were barred by the Eleventh
Amendment. See Will v. Michigan Dept. of State Police, 491 U.S.
58, 71 (1989). Perkins failed to establish that the defendants
violated any of his constitutional rights, therefore, the district
court did not err or abuse its discretion in dismissing Perkins’s
claims for injunctive relief against the defendants in their
official capacities and Perkins’s claims against the defendants in
their individual capacities. See Harris v. Angelina County, Tex.,
31 F.3d 331, 337-38 (5th Cir. 1994); Rankin v. Klevenhagen, 5 F.3d
103, 105 (5th Cir. 1993). The district court’s judgment is
affirmed.
Perkins’s motions for a temporary restraining order or
preliminary injunction, for the appointment of counsel, and for a
stay of the appeal are denied.
AFFIRMED; MOTIONS DENIED.
2