Williams v. Stevens ( 1999 )

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 98-41401
Summary Calendar
JAMES WILLIAMS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
W. STEVENS; SAM PALASODA; S. BUTLER;
GASPAR CANTU; C. ELLINGBURG; BARBARA ROSS;
MCALVANEY,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. G-93-CV-29
--------------------
August 12, 1999
Before KING, Chief Judge, and HIGGINBOTHAM and STEWART, Circuit
Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
James Williams, Texas prisoner # 296974, appeals the
district court’s summary-judgment dismissal of 42 U.S.C. § 1983lawsuit raising claims under the Eighth Amendment for the denial
of medical care and for the use of excessive force arising out of
an incident in 1992 when, he alleges, prison officials placed
handcuffs on him too tightly for the sole purpose of causing him
pain. Although Williams asserts he was denied medical care, his
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 98-41401
-2-
medical records reveal that he did not make a sick-call request
complaining of injury to his wrists or otherwise request
treatment for a wrist injury. See Banuelos v. McFarland, 41 F.3d
232, 235 (5th Cir. 1995)(medical records of sick calls,
examinations, diagnoses, and medications may rebut an inmate’s
allegations of deliberate indifference). Williams does not
contend that he requested and was denied medical treatment;
instead, he conclusionally argues that the fact that he was
forced to treat himself by applying wet heat to his wrists and by
taking medications prescribed him for a prior injury supports his
denial-of-medical-care claim. His conclusional arguments are
both unpersuasive and insufficient to withstand the defendants’
summary-judgment motion. See Little v. Liquid Air Corp., 37 F.3d
1069, 1075 (5th Cir. 1994)(en banc). Because Williams never
complained of injury nor requested medical treatment, he has not
shown that the defendants knew of and disregarded an excessive
risk of harm. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 847 (1994);
Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104 (1976). He has therefore
failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to deliberate
indifference or serious medical need, and summary-judgment
dismissal of his denial-of-medical care claim was appropriate.
See id.The district court likewise did not err in granting summary
judgment dismissing Williams’ excessive-use-of-force claim. The
undisputed summary-judgment evidence demonstrates that Williams
suffered, at most, only de minimis injury, discomfort and
swelling to the wrists, for which he did not request or receive
No. 98-41401
-3-
medical treatment. His claim was therefore not cognizable under
§ 1983. See Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 10 (1992)(the use
of de minimis force cannot result in constitutional injury unless
the use of force was “repugnant to the conscience of mankind”);
Siglar v. Hightower, 112 F.3d 191, 193 (5th Cir. 1997)
(allegations of a sore, bruised ear, which caused pain for three
days and for which the inmate sought no medical treatment,
presented only nonactionable de minimis injury).
AFFIRMED.