Case ID: f-appx_358/html/0567-01.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

James Anthony CAMPBELL, Plaintiff-Appellant v. Kenzie A. BOND, Lieutenant; Kimberly S. Moore, Sergeant; Donna K. Cabeen, Captain; Philip Bradley, CO3; Michael D. Barnett, Captain; Kari S. Anthony, CO3; Mattie B. Dominy, CO3; Richard A. Gunnels, Major; Wendy McKee, Grievance Investigator; Texas Department of Criminal Justice-Institutional Division, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 09-20362
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Dec. 23, 2009.
    James Anthony Campbell, Huntsville, TX, pro Se.
    Julia Hamill Murray, Office of the Attorney General, Law Enforcement Defense Div., Austin, TX, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before DAVIS, SMITH, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

In this appeal, James Anthony Campbell, an inmate of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division (“TDCJ-CID”), challenges the district court’s dismissal of his complaint brought against a number of TDCJ-CID officials pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Campbell claimed in the district court that he was subjected to physical assault by TDCJ-CID officers, placed in an unsanitary and contaminated cell, and that TDCJ-CID officials were deliberately indifferent to his health and medical needs all in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Campbell also alleged retaliation, conspiracy, and a denial of due process.

The District Court, in a thoughtful, well-reasoned, and thorough opinion, granted summary judgment to defendants on all claims and dismissed the suit. After carefully reviewing the record and briefs of the parties, and for the reasons assigned in the district court’s Memorandum and Order on May 7, 2009, we affirm the judgment of the district court. Accordingly, Campbell’s motion for appointment of counsel is denied. See Schwander v. Blackburn, 750 F.2d 494, 502 (5th Cir.1985).

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       Pursuant to 5th Cir R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.