Case ID: f-appx_87/html/0378-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Lorenzo LEWIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Gary L. JOHNSON; Dale Story; Mike Mangham; McLendon, Officer; James Lester Walker, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 03-20733.
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Feb. 17, 2004.
    
      Lorenzo Lewis, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Iowa Park, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
    Jason E Magee, Office of the Attorney General, Austin, TX, for Defendant-Appellee.
    Before BARKSDALE, EMILIO M. GARZA, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM.

Lorenzo Lewis, Texas prisoner #738181, appeals, pro se, the summary judgment dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims. Lewis’s claims are reviewed de novo. E.g., Skotak v. Tenneco Resins, Inc., 953 F.2d 909, 912 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 832, 113 S.Ct. 98, 121 L.Ed.2d 59 (1992).

The use of black-box handcuff apparatuses to restrain prisoners during transportation is not violative of the Eighth Amendment. See Fulford v. King, 692 F.2d 11, 14 (5th Cir.1982). Lewis is not entitled to damages for any mental or emotional injury allegedly suffered when these restraints were applied to him in a vertical position, because any physical injury he suffered was de minimis. See 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(e); Alexander v. Tippah County, Miss., 351 F.3d 626, 631 (5th Cir.2003). Furthermore, because the use of such apparatuses does not offend the Constitution, Lewis is not entitled, under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, to their use being enjoined. See 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1)(A).

Finally, Lewis does not brief the issue whether the district court erred in not certifying a class action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23; therefore, that issue is waived. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 225 (5th Cir.1993).

AFFIRMED 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.