Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-14-60234/USCOURTS-ca5-14-60234-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
J. Birdtail
Appellee
Mark Burgess
Appellant
Christopher Epps
Appellee
Carl Faulks
Appellee
O. Little
Appellee
David Petrie
Appellee
Carl Reddix
Appellee
Michael Reddix
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-60234

Summary Calendar

MARK BURGESS,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

DR. MICHAEL REDDIX, Private Prison Medical Contractor; DR. CARL 

FAULKS, Private Prison Medical Contractor; DAVID PETRIE, MDOC Legal 

Claims Adjudicator; CHRISTOPHER EPPS, MDOC Commissioner; J. 

BIRDTAIL; O. LITTLE; DR. CARL REDDIX,

Defendants-Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 3:13-CV-1006

Before SMITH, PRADO, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Mark Burgess, Mississippi prisoner # 77647, appeals the district court’s 

grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendants in his civil action, in 

which he alleged that he had been denied adequate medical care and an 

 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

July 2, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 14-60234 Document: 00513103247 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/02/2015
No. 14-60234

2

adequate grievance procedure during his incarceration at the East Mississippi 

Correctional Facility.

A district court “shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that 

there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and that the movant is 

entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” FED. R. CIV. P. 56(a). We review a 

district court’s ruling on summary judgment de novo, employing the same 

standard used by the district court. McFaul v. Valenzuela, 684 F.3d 564, 571 

(5th Cir. 2012). We do not consider arguments Burgess makes for the first 

time on appeal. See Stewart Glass & Mirror, Inc. v. U.S. Auto Glass Discount 

Ctrs., Inc., 200 F.3d 307, 316-17 (5th Cir. 2000).

The record and Burgess’s allegations could not lead to the conclusions 

that the defendants “refused to treat him, ignored his complaints, intentionally 

treated him incorrectly, or engaged in any similar conduct that would clearly 

evince a wanton disregard for any serious medical needs.” Domino v. Texas 

Dep’t of Criminal Justice, 239 F.3d 752, 756 (5th Cir. 2001) (internal quotation 

marks and citation omitted); see City of Alexandria v. Brown, 740 F.3d 339, 350 

(5th Cir. 2014). Burgess does not have a constitutional right to have his 

grievances resolved in his favor or to have his claims reviewed pursuant to a 

grievance process that is responsive to his perceived injustices; thus, the 

denials of his grievances do not implicate his constitutional rights or give rise 

to a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim. See Geiger v. Jowers, 404 F.3d 371, 374 (5th Cir. 

2005); see also Stauffer v. Gearhart, 741 F.3d 574, 587 (5th Cir. 2014).

Burgess asserts that the defendants impeded his right to access the court 

by failing to provide him proper legal materials and by intentionally interfering 

with and tampering with his mail by denying, delaying, or hindering the 

mailing of his legal mail. Because the district court denied Burgess’s request 

Case: 14-60234 Document: 00513103247 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/02/2015
No. 14-60234

3

to amend his complaint to add this issue, the issue of mail tampering is not 

properly before this court.

Additionally, he has not shown that the district court abused its “sound 

discretion” by denying his motions for production of documents. See McFaul, 

684 F.3d at 580. Nor has he shown that the district court clearly abused its 

discretion by denying his motions for the appointment of counsel. See Cupit v. 

Jones, 835 F.2d 82, 86 (5th Cir. 1987).

The district court’s grant of summary judgment is AFFIRMED. 

Burgess’s motions for appointment of appellate counsel, leave to supplement 

his original brief, and leave to file an affidavit in support of appeal and all other 

pending motions are DENIED.

Case: 14-60234 Document: 00513103247 Page: 3 Date Filed: 07/02/2015