McKnight v. Canulette

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-30314
Summary Calendar
EUGENE McKNIGHT,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
PATRICK J. CANULETTE; ET AL.,
Defendants,
JAMIE MULKEY; STEVEN CHAISSON,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana
USDC No. 98-CV-2498-S
--------------------
May 21, 2001
Before DAVIS, JONES, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Eugene McKnight, Louisiana prisoner #183825, appeals from
the judgment for the defendants in his civil rights action.
McKnight contends that Deputy Jamie Mulkey and Deputy Steven
Chaisson were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs
when he was a pretrial detainee at the St. Tammany Parish,
Louisiana, jail and that the magistrate judge erred by allowing
admission of evidence of his criminal convictions.
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 00-30314
-2-
The magistrate judge’s findings that Deputy Chaisson was
not present when McKnight slipped on the stairs at the jail and
that McKnight failed to inform Deputy Mulkey of his injury are not
clearly erroneous. Moreover, McKnight’s own testimony indicated
that he notified medical personnel of his injuries through a
medical request form shortly after his accident and that he
persisted in seeking attention from nurses. Once McKnight made his
plight known to the medical staff, he did not need the deputies to
seek care for him. The magistrate judge did not err by determining
that Deputies Chaisson and Mulkey were not deliberately indifferent
to McKnight’s serious medical needs. See Hare v. City of Corinth,
74 F.3d 633, 639 (5th Cir. 1996)(en banc); Mendoza v. Lynaugh, 989
F.2d 191, 195 (5th Cir. 1993).
McKnight did not object to being questioned about his
convictions, and no extrinsic evidence of the convictions was
admitted into evidence. His contention regarding admission of
evidence about the convictions is reviewed under the plain-error
standard. United States v. Burton, 126 F.3d 666, 671 (5th Cir.
1997). Because the evidence at the bench trial in McKnight’s case
supported the rejection of McKnight’s deliberate-indifference
claim, McKnight has failed to demonstrate error, plain or
otherwise, regarding his testimony about his previous convictions.
See Southern Pac. Transp. Co. v. Chabert, 973 F.2d 441, 448 (5th
Cir. 1992).
AFFIRMED.