United States Court of Appeals

for 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 Health Care; 

Management Training Corporation; Archie Longley, 

Deputy Commissioner; Dr. Gloria Perry, Chief 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: 09/27/2022
No. 18-60183

2

Per Curiam:*

John Ashley Hale, Mississippi prisoner # 24720, filed a complaint 

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Title II of the Americans with Disabilities 

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 in violation of the Eighth 

Amendment. He also raised claims of retaliation. Hale appeals the district 

court’s summary judgment dismissal of his claims.1

Summary judgment is appropriate if the pleadings, admissions, and 

other competent evidence demonstrate “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 light 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 Circuit Rule 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited 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 Circuit Rule 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 direct-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 Taylor 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 those claims. See Yohey v. 

Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993).

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

3

As an initial matter, Hale argues that the district court failed to 

consider evidence he submitted in support of his claims, including his 

medical 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 raises 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 treatment 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 Abangan was 

deliberately indifferent or retaliated against him by intentionally failing 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: 09/27/2022
No. 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