Walter v. Perkins ( 2021 )

Case: 20-30547 Document: 00516103469 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/22/2021
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
November 22, 2021
No. 20-30547
Lyle W. Cayce
Summary Calendar Clerk
Robert Walter,
Plaintiff—Appellant,
versus
David Perkins, Lieutenant; Angola State Penitentiary,
Defendants—Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Louisiana
USDC No. 3:18-CV-683
Before King, Costa, and Ho, Circuit Judges
Per Curiam:*
Robert Walter, Louisiana prisoner # 613649, appeals the dismissal as
frivolous and for failure to state a claim of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint
against Lieutenant David Perkins and the Louisiana State Penitentiary. Even
under de novo review, Walter’s vague allegations of threats by Perkins, and
*
Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Case: 20-30547 Document: 00516103469 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/22/2021
No. 20-30547
“promises of violence” by other unnamed prison staff if Walter exercised his
right to pursue his administrative grievance are, without more, insufficient to
state a claim of either retaliation or an Eighth Amendment violation. See
Morris v. Powell, 449 F.3d 682, 684 (5th Cir. 2006); Geiger v. Jowers, 404 F.3d
371, 373 (5th Cir. 2005); Calhoun v. Hargrove, 312 F.3d 730, 734 (5th Cir.
2002).
Walter’s reiterated allegations against the Louisiana State
Penitentiary’s failure to protect him generally are likewise unavailing. See
Geiger, 404 F.3d at 373. Walter does not address the district court’s
conclusions that he failed to identify specific officials with a subjective
awareness of facts indicating that another inmate represented a danger to
Walter and posed a substantial risk of serious harm as required for such an
Eighth Amendment claim. See Geiger, 404 F.3d at 373; Longoria v. Texas, 473
F.3d 586, 592-93 (5th Cir. 2006).
By not addressing the district court’s decision not to exercise
supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims, Walter has abandoned any
challenge to that decision. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th
Cir. 1993); Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(8). As to Walter’s claims regarding
falsified documents and fraudulent filings, the record reveals nothing “dated
8th of July 2020 from this court” or any filings in his name related to seeking
transcripts. These assertions are thus either unsupported by the record or
insufficiently briefed to demonstrate any entitlement to relief in this appeal.
See Yohey, 985 F.2d at 224-25.
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
2