Spurlock v. Williamson

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT July 25, 2005
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 04-20710
Summary Calendar
JOHN CHARLES SPURLOCK,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
CHARLES A. WILLIAMSON; LAWRENCE N. HODGES; GARY L. JOHNSON,
DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE,
INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION; ADOLPH THOMAS; WILLIAM BATES;
RICHARD GUNNEL; DENISE JEFFERSON; STEPHANIE MARTIN
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:02-CV-4553
--------------------
Before WIENER, BENAVIDES, AND STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
John Charles Spurlock, Texas inmate # 741571, appeals the
district court’s grant of summary judgment for the defendants in
his civil rights action, filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Spurlock’s motion to file an out-of-time reply brief is GRANTED.
Spurlock argues that the defendants are not entitled to qualified
immunity on his failure-to-protect claim.
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 04-20710
-2-
The defendants’ summary judgement evidence showed that the
defendants were not aware that placing Inmate Hudspeth in the
general population created a substantial risk of harm to
Spurlock’s safety. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 833
(1994); Neals v. Norwood, 59 F.3d 530, 533 (5th Cir. 1995).
Therefore, Spurlock failed to meet his burden of showing that a
genuine issue of material fact existed relative to the
defendants’ awareness. See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S.
317, 324 (1986). Absent such a showing, Spurlock failed to show
that the defendants violated his constitutional rights, and the
district court did not err when it concluded that they were
entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law. See FED. R. CIV.
P. 56(c); Little v. Liquid Air Corp., 37 F.3d 1069, 1075 (5th
Cir. 1994)(en banc); Morin v. Caire, 77 F.3d 116, 120 (5th Cir.
1996).
The district court did not abuse its discretion when it
denied Spurlock’s discovery request. See Mitchell v. Forsyth,
472 U.S. 511, 526 (1985); King v. Dogan, 31 F.3d 344, 346 (5th
Cir. 1994). Nor did the district court err when it denied
Spurlock the appointment of counsel for discovery purposes. See
Ulmer v. Chancellor, 691 F.2d 209, 212 (5th Cir. 1992).
AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED.