Montelongo v. Crawford ( 2002 )

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-40769
Summary Calendar
ANDREW MONTELONGO, JR.,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
UNIDENTIFIED CRAWFORD, Doctor, Hodge
Unit; HODGE UNIT, Medical Staff;
UNIDENTIFIED WILLIAMS, Warden, Hodge Unit,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 6:01-CV-59
--------------------
May 21, 2002
Before DeMOSS, PARKER and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Andrew Montelongo, Jr., Texas prisoner # 588641, appeals the
lower court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint under
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and (ii). He contends that he has
shown that Dr. Crawford was deliberately indifferent to his
serious medical needs because Montelongo did not obtain a
magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of his back until 21 months
after his injury. Montelongo has failed to show that Crawford’s
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 01-40769
-2-
actions constituted deliberate indifference to his serious
medical needs or that substantial harm resulted from the delay in
treatment. See Mendoza v. Lynaugh, 989 F.2d 191, 195 (5th Cir.
1993); see also Mayweather v. Foti, 958 F.2d 91, 91 (5th Cir.
1992).
Montelongo also asserts that the magistrate judge
prematurely dismissed his case without providing him with an
opportunity to explain his claims further. As the magistrate
judge conducted a hearing pursuant to Spears v. McCotter, 766
F.2d 179 (5th Cir. 1985), Montelongo had such an opportunity.
See Eason v. Thaler, 14 F.3d 8, 9 (5th Cir. 1994).
Montelongo has failed to assert on appeal that the
magistrate judge erred in dismissing his claims against Nurse
Williams and Warden Williams. Issues that are not briefed on
appeal are deemed abandoned. Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy
Sheriff Abner, 813 F.3d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987).
Montelongo has failed to show that the district court erred
in dismissing his civil rights lawsuit. See Black v. Warren, 134
F.3d 732, 733-34 (5th Cir. 1998). Consequently, the judgment of
the magistrate judge is AFFIRMED.
Montelongo has also requested appointment of counsel. He
has failed to show that exceptional circumstances warranting such
an appointment exist. See Ulmer v. Chancellor, 691 F.2d 209, 212
(5th Cir. 1982). The motion is DENIED.
AFFIRMED; MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL DENIED.