### IN THE UNI TED STAT ES COURT OFAPPEALS FOR THE FIF TH CIRCU IT

No. 12-40390 Summary Calendar

ANTWON PARKER, Plaintiff-Appellant

v. DAVID FORTNER; FNU SCRUGGS; JEANIE ALLISON; DR. FNU HANLEY; CECIL HASTY; AMY JONES; PATRICK COOPER; NEAL WEB; MICHAEL SIZEMORE, Defendants-Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 6:10-CV-296

Before BENAVIDES, HAYNES, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Antwon Parker, T e x a s p ri s o n e r # 1 3 1 1 5 1 7 , a p p e al s th e s u m m ary j u dgment di s m i s s i n g hi s c l aims of deliberate indifference to medical needs, retaliation, and discrimination. We have reviewed t h e r e cord, including Parker’s submissions in opposition to summary judgment, and we conclude that he has not shown any genuine dispute as to any material fact concerning whe t h e r t h e defendants U n i te d S ta te s C o u rt o f A p p ea l s

F i ft h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D Janu ary23 , 20 13 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk

Purs uant to 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5 , the cour t has d ete rm inedt hat this op inion sho uld not * be publ ish ed and is not pr ece dent excep t unde r the lim ite d cir cum st ance s se t for th in 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5 .4. Case: 12-40390 Document: 00512122101 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/23/2013No. 12-40390

showed deliberate indifference to his medical needs. See F E D

. R. C I V

. P. 56(a); Duffie v. United States , 600 F.3d 362, 371 (5th Cir. 2010); Lawso n v. Dallas County , 286 F

. 3 d 2 5 7 , 262 (5th Cir. 2002). The record is replete with uncontes t e d evi d e n c e o f P ark er’s medical care showing that Parker’s contentions

concern only his disagreement and dissatisfaction with the diagnosis and treatment of his medical problems. See Sama v. Hannigan , 669 F.3d 585, 590 (5th Cir. 2012); Banuelos v. McFarland , 41 F.3d 232, 235 (5th Cir. 1 9 9 5 ). Accordi n gly, he has not made the showing necessary to defeat summary judgment on his claims of deliberate indifference to his m edical needs. See Duffie , 600 F.3d at 371. Parker’s claims that defendant Cecil Has ty s h o w e d deliberate indifference to his medical condition by assigning him to jobs beyond his medical restrictions likewise fail. Parker has f a i l e d to show that there is a genuinely contested factual issue as to whether Hasty ignored any restriction of which he had actual knowledge. See Lawson , 286 F.3d at 262-63. Concerning retaliation, Parker merely reiterates his prior a l l e g a tions of defendant wrong-doing and fails to identify any genuine factual issue that would suggest a retaliatory motivation by any defendant. See Woods v. Smith , 60 F.3d 1161, 1164-66 (5th Cir. 1995). Parker also contends that H a s ty discriminated against him on racial grounds in the distribution of kitchen job assignments. Parker asserts merely th a t H a s t y temporarily assigned to a white prisoner the shift that Parker had been working and that there was no rational basis for doing so. Hasty testified by affidav i t t hat work was assigned on the basis of practical factors and that Parker’s assignment was not based on race. In resp o n s e, Parker failed to identify any genuine factual dispute material to the essential issue of discriminatory intent. See Adkins v. Kaspar , 393 F.3d 559, 566 (5th Cir. 2004) (rejecting prison discrimination claim based on “bald, unsupported, conclusional allegations”); Woods v. Edwards , 51 F.3d 577, 580 (5th Cir. 1995).
2 Case: 12-40390 Document: 00512122101 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/23/2013No. 12-40390

Parker makes vague and speculative claims for additional discovery. He fails to show that the district court abused its discretion by denying additional discovery. See Raby v. Livingston , 600 F.3d 552, 561 (5th Cir. 2010); International Shortstop, Inc. v. Rally’s, Inc. , 939 F.2d 1257, 1267 (5th Cir. 1991). Parker likewise fails to a show that the district court abused its discretion by declining to appoint counsel. See McFaul v. Valen z u e la , 684 F.3d 564, 581 (5th Cir. 2012). Parker was able to present his claims vigorously and coherently. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

3 Case: 12-40390 Document: 00512122101 Page: 3 Date Filed: 01/23/2013