# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or the Fifth Circuit** 

No. 18

- 60183 Summary Calendar

**John Ashley Hale,**
Plaintiff

— Appellant **,**

versus
**Dr. Roland Abangan,** Official and Individual Capacity **; Dr. John Doe,**  Official and Individual Capacity **; Kitchen Supervisor K. Chaney; John and Jane Does; Kitchen Supervisor C.**  **Rutledge; Dr. Gurdial S. Sandhu; Trinity Food Service; Health Administrator Ollie Little; Governor Phil**  **Bryant; Commissioner Marshall Fisher; Health**  **Assurance; Unknown Glass,** Kitchen Supervisor **; Unknown Taylor,**  Kitchen Supervisor ; **Nurse Evalyn Dunn; Dr. Kim Nagel; Henry Ford; Centurion Hea**  **l th Care;**  **Management Training Corporation; Archie Longley,** Deputy Commissioner **; Dr. Gloria Perry,** C hief Medical Officer **,** Defendants

— Appellees

**.**

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi USDC No. 3:15

- CV

- 170

Before **Jolly, Oldham,**  and **Wilson,** Circuit Judges

**.** United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED September 27, 2022 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 18-60183 Document: 00516486451 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/27/2022No. 18

- 60183

2 **Per Curiam :**  * John Ashley Hale, Mississippi prisoner # 24720, filed a complaint
under 4 2 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Title II of the Americans with Disabilit i es Act ( ADA ) alleging that the defendants’ denial of adequate mental health care, medical care, and an appropriate diet constituted a failure to
accommodate his disabilities in violation of Title II of the ADA and deliberate
indifference to his serious medical needs i n violation of the Eighth
Amendment. He also raised claims of retaliation. H al e appeals the district court’s summary judgment dismissal of his claims. 1 Summary judgment is appropriate if the pleadings, admissions, and other competent evidence demonstra te “that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and 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, “constru [ing] all facts and evidence in the li ght most
favorable to the non

- moving party.” Jennings v. Towers Watson , 11 F.4th 335, 341 (5th Cir. 2021) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

* Pursuant to **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  47 .5.4.

1 Hale does not argue in his initial brief that the district court erred in dismissing his claims that (1) Abangan and other defendants were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs because they failed to treat his hepatitis C with direc t

- acting antiviral drugs ; (2) Dr. Gurdial Sandhu retaliated against him for filing a court case by intentionally misclassifying him during a mental health evaluation ; (3) Trinity Services Group, Karen Chaney, Crystal Rutledge, Orlando Glass, and Patricia T aylor failed to provide adequate meals, including a high protein diet ; and (4) Chaney, Radcliff, Rutledge, Glass, and Taylor retaliated against him for filing court cases and grievances by denying him food services. Hale has waived any challenge he might have raised regarding th ose claims

. See Yohey v. Collins , 985 F.2d 222, 224

- 25 (5th Cir. 1993)

. Case: 18-60183 Document: 00516486451 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/27/2022No. 18

- 60183

3 As an initial matter, Hale argues that the district court failed to
consider evidence he submitted i n support of his claims, including his

m edical records from the VA and medical articles from various sources. It is
not clear whether the district court took that evidence into account when ruling on Hale’s claims. However, nothing in those documents rai ses a genuine issue of material fact that would have precluded the district court’s grant of summary judgment.

Hale argued that Abangan failed to adequately treat his chronic back pain and refused to order a high

- protein diet. He also argued that Dunn and Nagel failed to adequately treat his mental health issues and prescribed medications that would damage his liver. As the district court held, Hale’s disagreement with his medical treatmen t did not create a genuine issue of
material fact as to whether those defendants were deliberately indifferent to
his serious medical needs. See Easter v. Powell , 467 F.3d 459, 463 (5th Cir. 2006).
Nothing in the record supports Hale’s claims that Abang an was deliberately indifferent or retaliated against him by intentionally fail ing to treat what Hale believed to be an infestation of mites, lice, or parasites . Nor has Hale shown that the district court erred in determining that he failed to produce any direct evidence of retaliation or allege a chronology of events from which retaliation could plausibly be inferred that would support his
claim that Ford retaliated against him by removing him from the Pathway to Change rehabilitation program. See Jones v. Greninger , 188 F.3d 322, 324

- 25 (5th Cir. 1999)

. Case: 18-60183 Document: 00516486451 Page: 3 Date Filed: 09/27/2022No. 18

- 60183

4 Finally, the district court did not err in determining that Hale’s complaints of inadequate medical care did not establish a claim under the
ADA. See Nottingham v. Richardson , 499 F. App’x 368, 377 (5th Cir. 2012); Hale v. King , 642 F.3d 492, 499 (5th Cir. 2011)

. Hale has not shown that the district court erred in dismissing his
claims. The judgment of the district court is **AFFIRMED**

**.** Hale’s motion for the appointment of counsel is **DENIED.** Case: 18-60183 Document: 00516486451 Page: 4 Date Filed: 09/27/2022