IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-11259

Summary Calendar

BILLY R. SANFORD,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

TARRANT COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT; OFFICER CLARK; JOHN 

PETER SMITH HOSPITAL,

Defendants-Appellees

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:14-CV-822

Before DAVIS, JONES, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Billy R. Sanford, Texas prisoner # 0492400, filed a civil rights complaint, 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that the defendants were deliberately 

indifferent to his serious medical needs. He further alleged that Officer Clark 

violated his constitutional rights by using excessive force. Sanford timely 

 

* 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

January 6, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 14-11259 Document: 00513331921 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/06/2016
No. 14-11259

2

appeals the district court’s dismissal of his complaint, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915A(b)(1), for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

A district court shall dismiss a prisoner’s in forma pauperis civil rights 

complaint if the court determines that the action fails to state a claim upon 

which relief may be granted. § 1915A(b)(1). “A dismissal of a civil rights 

complaint for failure to state a claim is reviewed de novo, using the same 

standard applicable to dismissals under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

12(b)(6).” Rogers v. Boatright, 709 F.3d 403, 407 (5th Cir. 2013). A complaint 

fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted when it does not contain 

“sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is 

plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (internal 

quotation marks and citation omitted).

Before this court, Sanford does not brief any claim against the Tarrant 

County Sheriff’s Department. He does not challenge the district court’s 

determination that the Tarrant County Sheriff’s Department is not an entity 

capable of being sued. Even if we liberally construed Sanford’s complaint to 

allege a claim against Tarrant County, Texas, Sanford does not challenge the 

district court’s determination that a governmental entity cannot be held 

vicariously liable for the actions of its employees under a theory of respondeat

superior. Further, Sanford does not challenge the district court’s 

determination that he failed to allege that Tarrant County had executed a 

custom or policy that deprived Sanford of a constitutional right. Sanford has 

thus abandoned any challenge to the district court’s decision dismissing his 

action against the Tarrant County Sheriff’s Department for failure to state a 

claim upon which relief may be granted. See Brinkmann v. Dallas County 

Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987).

 Case: 14-11259 Document: 00513331921 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/06/2016
No. 14-11259

3

A review of Sanford’s medical records does not demonstrate deliberate 

indifference on the part of John Peter Smith Hospital. As noted at the Spears1

hearing, there is no evidence in the medical records that Sanford suffered a 

concussion. At most, Sanford’s complaint that he received only ibuprofen for 

pain amounts to a mere disagreement with medical treatment, which does not 

constitute a constitutional violation. See Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 107

(1976); see also Norton v. Dimazana, 122 F.3d 286, 292 (5th Cir. 1997). Sanford 

has failed to show that any employee of John Peter Smith Hospital ignored his 

complaints, refused treatment, “or engaged in any similar conduct that would 

clearly evince a wanton disregard for any serious medical needs.” See Johnson 

v. Treen, 759 F.2d 1236, 1238 (5th Cir. 1985). Accordingly, the district court 

did not err in dismissing his action for failure to state a claim upon which relief 

may be granted. See Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.

As to Sanford’s excessive force claim, there is no indication that Officer 

Clark maliciously and sadistically used force to cause Sanford harm. See

Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 7 (1992). Sanford’s claim does not show that,

under the circumstances, the officer used more force than was reasonably 

necessary to secure Sanford and maintain order. See id. at 6-7. Further, the 

record belies Sanford’s assertion that the defendants’ attorney admitted at the 

Spears hearing to tampering with evidence that would have supported 

Sanford’s excessive force claim.

The district court did not err in dismissing Sanford’s § 1983 complaint 

for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. See § 1915A(b)(1); 

Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. Additionally, the district court did not abuse its 

discretion in denying Sanford’s motion for appointment of counsel. See Cupit 

 

1 Spears v. McCotter, 766 F.2d 179 (5th Cir. 1985).

 Case: 14-11259 Document: 00513331921 Page: 3 Date Filed: 01/06/2016
No. 14-11259

4

v. Johnson, 835 F.2d 82, 86 (5th Cir. 1987). Sanford’s motions for appointment 

of counsel on appeal and entry of default judgment are denied.

AFFIRMED; ALL OUTSTANDING MOTIONS DENIED.

 Case: 14-11259 Document: 00513331921 Page: 4 Date Filed: 01/06/2016