Case ID: f-appx_71/html/0373-01.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

Cornelius Ray SEPHUS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Hattie WHITFIELD; Reginald Smith, M.D.; Fafael Oliver, Lieutenant; Alberto Diaz, Sergeant; Angela Rodriguez, Nurse; V. Fivas; Janet White; R. Malaer; M. Myers; E. Corroll; Teresa Simons; Z.Z. Vacant, Nurse; Mona Martinez; Shirley Pfeil, Licensed Vocational Nurse; Martha Byrd; Peggy Gohlke; Joseph Gill; Debra Gloor; Joyce Comfort; D.A. Ruby; Domingo Carrillo, Major; Laurie Steele, Defendants-Appellees.
    
      No. 02-51412.
    Summary Calendar
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Aug. 15, 2003.
    Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM.

Cornelius Ray Sephus, Texas prisoner # 635586, appeals from the magistrate judge’s grant of summary judgment for the defendants in his civil-rights lawsuit, filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This court reviews a grant of summary judgment de novo, using the same standard applicable in the district court. See Melton v. Teachers Ins. & Annuity Ass’n of America, 114 F.3d 557, 559 (5th Cir.1997).

Sephus argues that the magistrate judge failed to consider his submitted exhibits and that those exhibits presented a genuine issue as to whether the defendants were deliberately indifferent to his medical needs. Examination of the magistrate judge’s judgment clearly indicates that Sephus’s exhibits were considered and that no genuine issue as to any material fact existed regarding Sephus’s claims. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). At most, the evidence in the record alleged negligence by the defendants, which is not actionable. See Varnado v. Lynaugh, 920 F.2d 320, 321 (5th Cir.1991).

Accordingly, the magistrate judge’s judgment is AFFIRMED. All outstanding motions are DENIED.

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       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir R. 47.5.4.