eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 Federal Courts
 US Court of Appeals Cases
 Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
 2022-01

Garza v. Davis ( 2022 )


Menu:
 
  • Case: 20-20533       Document: 00516158826            Page: 1      Date Filed: 01/07/2022
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit                                United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
January 7, 2022
No. 20-20533                         Lyle W. Cayce
Summary Calendar                            Clerk
David Garza,
Plaintiff—Appellant,
versus
Lorie Davis; Troy Selman, Warden;
Betty Williams, Medical Doctor,
Defendants—Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
No. 4:18-CV-4387
Before Smith, Stewart, and Graves, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
David Garza, Texas inmate #1633521, appeals the summary-judgment
dismissal of his
    42 U.S.C. § 1983
     civil action alleging that the defendants were
deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs by denying him proper
*
Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opin-
ion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances
set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Case: 20-20533     Document: 00516158826          Page: 2     Date Filed: 01/07/2022
No. 20-20533
medication to manage his chronic pain. Garza further challenges the denials
of his motion to amend and supplement his complaint and his motion for
appointment of counsel. We affirm.
The district court did not err by granting summary judgment. See
McFaul v. Valenzuela,
    684 F.3d 564
    , 571 (5th Cir. 2012). The competent
summary judgment evidence shows that Dr. Williams prescribed Garza a
30-day course of naproxen—the pain medication he specifically requested—
with no refills and warned him about risks of long-term use of naproxen that
were specific to his underlying health conditions. The evidence also shows
that Garza was prescribed two other medications for pain management—one
with multiple refills—and also had access to acetaminophen by request.
Accordingly, the district court properly determined that there is no genuine
dispute of material fact and that Dr. Williams is entitled to judgment as a
matter of law. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a); Gobert v. Caldwell,
    463 F.3d 339
    ,
345-46 (5th Cir. 2006). Furthermore, Garza has waived, by failure to brief,
any challenge to the summary judgment for the remaining defendants. See
Grant v. Cuellar,
    59 F.3d 523
    , 524 (5th Cir. 1995); Brinkmann v. Dallas Cnty.
Deputy Sheriff Abner,
    813 F.2d 744
    , 748 (5th Cir. 1987).
Additionally, Garza fails to show an abuse of discretion in the denial
of his motions to amend and supplement his complaint. See Pervasive Soft-
ware Inc. v. Lexware GmbH & Co. KG,
    688 F.3d 214
    , 232 (5th Cir. 2012);
Burns v. Exxon Corp.,
    158 F.3d 336
    , 343 (5th Cir. 1998). He also does not
demonstrate that the district court abused its discretion in declining to
appoint counsel. See Baranowski v. Hart,
    486 F.3d 112
    , 126 (5th Cir. 2007).
AFFIRMED.
2