Olivas v. Correctional Corp. of America

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT January 30, 2007
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 06-10208
Summary Calendar
MATILDE R. OLIVAS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
CORRECTIONAL CORPORATION OF AMERICA,
Defendant-Appellee.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:04-CV-511
--------------------
Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM, and GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Matilde R. Olivas appeals the district court’s grant of
summary judgment on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim against the
Correctional Corporation of America (“CCA”). As Olivas did not
brief his state law claim against CCA on appeal, it is abandoned.
See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993);
Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744,
748 (5th Cir. 1987).
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 06-10208
-2-
We review the grant of a motion for summary judgment de
novo. Cousin v. Small, 325 F.3d 627, 637 (5th Cir. 2003).
Contrary to Olivas’s argument, CCA may not be held liable on a
theory of respondeat superior. See Monell v. Dep’t of Social
Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 691 (1978). Olivas also argues that CCA’s
dental care policy resulted in him receiving inadequate treatment
for his injury. Olivas has not submitted evidence sufficient to
demonstrate that the injury should have been treated as a medical
emergency or that the treatment he received constituted
deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. See
Varnado v. Lynaugh, 920 F.2d 320, 321 (5th Cir. 1991). Further,
Olivas does not show substantial harm related to the delay. See
Mayweather v. Foti, 958 F.2d 91, 91 (5th Cir. 1992). Therefore,
summary judgment was proper in the instant case because Olivas
has not established that an official policy or custom caused a
constitutional violation. See Piotrowski v. City of Houston, 237
F.3d 567, 578 (5th Cir. 2001).
Accordingly, the judgment is AFFIRMED.