Brown v. Adams ( 2008 )


Menu:
  •            IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT  United States Court of Appeals
    Fifth Circuit
    FILED
    February 27, 2008
    No. 07-10156
    Summary Calendar                   Charles R. Fulbruge III
    Clerk
    PERRY H BROWN
    Plaintiff-Appellant
    v.
    WARDEN JOHN H ADAMS; R THOMAS, Assistant Warden; GARY L GRIGGS,
    Major; G W SCHMOKER, Chief of Classification; SUNDAY WILSON, Physician
    Assistant; Texas Tech University Health Science Center
    Defendants-Appellees
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Northern District of Texas
    USDC No. 5:06-CV-195
    Before JONES, Chief Judge, and HIGGINBOTHAM and CLEMENT, Circuit
    Judges.
    PER CURIAM:*
    Perry H. Brown, Texas prisoner # 1169678, appeals from the district
    court’s dismissal with prejudice as frivolous of his pro se, in forma pauperis (IFP)
    civil rights complaint pursuant to 
    28 U.S.C. § 1915
    (e)(2).                 We review the
    dismissal of a prisoner complaint as frivolous for abuse of discretion. See Berry
    *
    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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
    be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. 07-10156
    v. Brady, 
    192 F.3d 504
    , 507 (5th Cir. 1999). Brown has abandoned on appeal his
    claim against Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center. See Yohey v.
    Collins, 
    985 F.2d 222
    , 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993).
    Brown argues that the defendants were deliberately indifferent to his knee
    pain by assigning him to work as a floor waxer, which he contends was against
    his work restrictions. Brown asserts that he twisted his knee while he was
    working as a floor waxer on April 22, 2006. The medical records in Brown’s case
    were authenticated. The magistrate judge thus could rely on those records to
    make findings as to whether the defendants were deliberately indifferent to
    Brown’s knee condition. See Banuelos v. McFarland, 
    41 F.3d 232
    , 235 (5th Cir.
    1995).
    The authenticated medical records do not support Brown’s argument that
    he had a significant pre-existing injury. The record indicates that Brown’s work
    restriction included “limited standing, no climbing, no walking on wet or uneven
    surfaces, no loud noises, and no food service.” Thus, he was not restricted from
    activities that involved bending, such as waxing the floor. Brown conceded at
    his Spears hearing that chairs were made available to inmates working this
    assignment. The fact that enough chairs were not available at the time when
    Brown was on duty does not establish that the defendants exposed Brown to a
    substantial risk of serious harm. See Farmer v. Brennan, 
    511 U.S. 825
    , 837
    (1994).
    Brown also argues that the defendants exercised deliberate indifference
    to his April 2006 knee injury by continuing to assign him to the duty of floor
    waxing.   Authenticated medical records establish that Brown’s knee was
    improving and the work-related restrictions he requested was not necessary.
    Brown’s complaint that an MRI should have been taken of his knee constitutes
    a disagreement with medical treatment and is insufficient to establish a
    cognizable claim of deliberate indifference. See Varnado v. Lynaugh, 
    920 F.2d 320
    , 321 (5th Cir. 1991).
    2
    No. 07-10156
    Brown asserts that Sunday Wilson, a physician’s assistant, deliberately
    withheld his crutches and changed his work-related restrictions issued by his
    doctors from May through September of 2006. The record contains numerous
    medical notes indicating that Brown’s work restrictions were carefully monitored
    by medical staff other than Wilson and that Wilson’s restrictions were in
    accordance with other medical recommendations. Brown cannot establish a
    claim of deliberate indifference as to Wilson. See Farmer, 
    511 U.S. at 837
    .
    The dismissal of the instant appeal counts as a strike for purposes of
    
    28 U.S.C. § 1915
    (g). See Adepegba v. Hammons, 
    103 F.3d 383
    , 387 (5th Cir.
    1996). Brown is cautioned that if he accumulates three strikes, he will not be
    permitted to proceed in forma pauperis in any civil action or appeal filed while
    he is incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he is under imminent danger
    of serious physical injury. See § 1915(g).
    AFFIRMED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 07-10156

Judges: Jones, Higginbotham, Clement

Filed Date: 2/27/2008

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024