Case ID: f-appx_205/html/0306-01.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

Fernando VALERA, also known as Eduardo Torres, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Tommy B. THOMAS, Sheriff; et al, Defendants, Tommy B. Thomas, Sheriff, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 05-20168
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Nov. 15, 2006.
    Fernando Valera, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Huntsville, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
    Celamaine Cunniff, Assistant Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General for the State of Texas, Austin, TX, for Defendants-Appellees.
    
      Before DeMOSS, STEWART and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Fernando Valera, Texas prisoner # 894333, appeals from the district court’s summary judgment dismissing on the merits his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint alleging deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. Valera challenges only the district court’s legal conclusions. He does not dispute the district court’s statement of facts gleaned from his medical records and from the Spears hearing.

The evidence relied on by the district court supports the district court’s conclusion that Valera has not shown that the defendants were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs. See Wagner v. Bay City, Tex., 227 F.3d 316, 324 (5th Cir.2000); Varnado v. Lynaugh, 920 F.2d 320, 321 (5th Cir.1991). The evidence also supports the district court’s conclusion that Valera’s constitutional rights were not violated by the Harris County Jail’s policy of confiscating prescription medication upon intake, see Meadowbriar Home For Children, Inc. v. Gunn, 81 F.3d 521, 532-33 (5th Cir.1996), and that Valera suffered no injury or loss of vision between the time his eye drops were confiscated and the time he was examined by physicians at the jail. Accordingly, the district court’s judgment is 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       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     
      
      
         Spears v. McCotter, 766 F.2d 179 (5th Cir.1985).