Case ID: f-appx_353/html/0996-02.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

David J. DAVIS, Plaintiff-Appellant v. Gary JOHNSON, Texas Prison Director; Jose Delarosa, Sergeant; Hill, Corrections Officer; John Doe, Corrections Officer; Ramon Covarrubias; Steven Koncaba, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 08-41329
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Dec. 2, 2009.
    David J. Davis, pro se.
    Ginger R. Phillips, Office of the Attorney General Law Enforcement Defense Div., Austin, TX, for Defendants-Appel-lees.
    
      Before JOLLY, WIENER and ELROD, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Plaintiff-Appellant, Texas prisoner 582332, appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Defendants-Appellees; specifically, the grant of qualified immunity to Defendants-Appel-lees in their individual capacities and the dismissal of claims against them in their official capacities on grounds of sovereign immunity while denying additional claims for injunctive relief. Davis’s action arises from an incident in which, by his own allegations, he resisted repeated orders of prison officials to submit to restraints by placing his hands behind him for such restraints to be affixed. Davis failed to meet his burden of alleging or adducing evidence to support the use of excessive force against him or injuries sufficiently severe and enduring to constitute a violation of his constitutional rights. Our review of the record on appeal and the applicable law satisfies us that all rulings of the district court are correct and free of reversible error. Accordingly, the judgment from which Davis appeals is affirmed, and his Motion For Appointment Of Counsel is denied.

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       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir R. 47.5.4.