Shumpert v. Hayes ( 1999 )

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 98-60283
Summary Calendar
RICHARD SHUMPERT,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
LEON HAYES, Sheriff,
Defendant-Appellee.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Mississippi
USDC No. 1:96-CV-313-D-D
- - - - - - - - - -
July 9, 1999
Before DAVIS, DUHÉ and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Richard Shumpert, Mississippi prisoner # 75341, appeals the
district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights
action alleging deliberate indifference to his serious medical
needs.
Shumpert did not include a transcript of the bench trial
which was held before the district court in the record on appeal,
although it is his duty as an appellant to provide a transcript
of all relevant evidence to support his appellate argument. See
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
1
Fed. R. App. P. 10 (b)(2); see Richardson v. Henry, 902 F.2d 414,
416 (5th Cir. 1990); Powell v. Estelle, 959 F.2d 22, 26 (5th Cir.
1992). Dismissing “the appeal for failure to provide a complete
transcript of the record on appeal is within the discretion of
the court.” Coats v. Pierre, 890 F.2d 728, 731 (5th Cir. 1989).
While we decline to exercise that option in this instance, we
necessarily limit the scope of our review to the available
record. See Boze v. Branstetter, 912 F.2d 801, 803 n.1 (5th Cir.
1990).
Shumpert argues that the district court erred in dismissing
his § 1983 action based on its determination that Shumpert did
not have a serious medical need and on its determination that
Hayes was not deliberately indifferent to Shumpert’s medical
need. The record supports the district court findings that
Shumpert was incarcerated as a pretrial detainee on April 20,
1995, that he complained of pain only once, on April 23, 1995,
that he was given a medical examination on April 24, 1995, and
that Defendant Hayes responded reasonably to Shumpert’s medical
needs. The district court noted that Shumpert’s allegation that
he was told he could not see a doctor unless he paid for the
treatment was unsupported by documentary evidence. However,
Shumpert arranged for a member of his family to pay for his
medical treatment. Assuming that Hayes unreasonably refused to
pay for Shumpert’s medical treatment, there is no indication in
the record before us that Shumpert suffered adverse consequences
from the delay it may have caused. See Mendoza v. Lynaugh, 989
2
F.2d 191, 195 (5th Cir. 1993)(A delay in obtaining medical care
rises to a constitutional violation only if the defendant was
deliberately indifferent and the delay resulted in substantial
harm.) There is also no indication that the timing of Shumpert’s
treatment or the treatment itself was unreasonable under the
circumstances.
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the dismissal of
Shumpert’s action.
AFFIRMED.
3