Case ID: f-appx_260/html/0660-01.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

Joel Lynn HOTCHKISS, Plaintiff-Appellant v. Curtis NEEL; Gale Piearce, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 06-10903
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Dec. 21, 2007.
    
      Nicole Leigh Rittenhouse, Thompson & Knight, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
    Stephen Douglas Henninger, Thomas Phillip Brandt, Fanning, Harper & Martin-son, Dallas, TX, for Defendant-Appellee.
    Before REAVLEY, SMITH, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Joel Lynn Hotchkiss, Texas prisoner, # 1164129, appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment to the defendants, Curtis Neel and Gale Piearce, in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights suit. Hotchkiss alleges that Neel and Piearce were deliberately indifferent to his medical needs because they refused to treat a boil that developed on the base of his neck, in violation of the Eighth Amendment.

Hotchkiss argues that the district court erred in dismissing his claims on the grounds that Neel and Piearce were entitled to qualified immunity on his individual claims and were not liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior. The record evidence supports the district court’s conclusion that the defendants did not demonstrate deliberate indifference to Hotchkiss’s medical condition. See Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 105-06, 97 S.Ct. 285, 50 L.Ed.2d 251 (1976). Because Hotchkiss can not show the violation of a clearly established constitutional right, Neel and Piearce are entitled to qualified immunity. See Mace v. City of Palestine, 333 F.3d 621, 623 (5th Cir.2003). Hotchkiss’s claim regarding supervisory liability is likewise unavailing because there is no such liability in § 1983 suits. See Stewart v. Murphy, 174 F.3d 530, 536 (5th Cir. 1999).

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       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.