Case ID: f-appx_158/html/0629-02.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

Ronald W. BUNTON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Monroe KREUZER, Jr., Sheriff; Bonnie Lnu, Jailor; Fnu Martinez, Jailor; Barbara Lnu, Jailor; Tammy Lnu, Nurse, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 04-41031.
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Decided Dec. 15, 2005.
    Ronald Wayne Bunton, Cuero, TX, pro se.
    
      Vanessa Ann Gonzalez, Allison, Bass & Associates, Austin, TX, for Defendant-Appellee.
    Before SMITH, GARZA, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Ronald W. Bunton, Texas inmate # 620942, appeals the district court’s summary judgment for Defendant Kreuzer based on qualified immunity in his pro se civil rights action, filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Bunton alleged that Kreuzer’s budget constraints resulted in a policy of hiring inadequate medical staff at the Chambers County Jail where Bunton was incarcerated as a pretrial detainee. Kreuzer’s summary judgment evidence showed that officials at the jail gave Bun-ton medication that was prescribed for him and otherwise tended to his medical needs. Bunton has failed to show that Kreuzer was “deliberately indifferent” in fading to hire adequate medical personnel or that the purported inadequate hiring caused Bunton’s injury. See Conner v. Travis County, 209 F.3d 794, 796 (5th Cir.2000). After reviewing the record, we conclude that the district court did not err in granting summary judgment for Kreuzer on this claim. See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 324, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986); Little v. Liquid Air Corp., 37 F.3d 1069, 1075 (5th Cir.1994)(en banc). Judgment for Kreuzer on this claim is AFFIRMED.

Kreuzer, however, produced no summary judgment evidence to refute Bun-ton’s claim that his placement in solitary confinement, as a pretrial detainee, violated his constitutional rights. Absent evidence to refute this claim, Kreuzer failed to meet his burden of showing the absence of a genuine issue of material fact regarding this claim. See Little, 37 F.3d at 1075. Consequently, the district court erred when it granted summary judgment on this claim. Judgment for Kreuzer on this claim is VACATED and the case is REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. We express no view on the ultimate merits of the claim.

AFFIRMED IN PART; VACATED AND REMANDED IN PART. 
      
       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.