Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinionshould not * be publishe d an d is not precedent except under the limited circu mstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 09- 60372 Su m m ar yC al endar

K EI TH M O RR I S , Pl ai nt i f f

- Appe l l ant

v. M A T T IE C O L L IN S , D efen da n t
- A pp el l ee

A pp ealf

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rt fo rth e S o u th e r n D is tr ic t o f M is s is s ip p i U SD C N o. 4: 07- C V

- 125

B ef ore D AV IS, SM ITH an d D E N N IS, C i rcui tJu dg es. P E R C U R IA M: * K e it h M o r r is , M is s is s ip p i p r is o n e r#K 1 5 9 0 , a p p e a ls th e d is t r ic tc o u r t ’s g r a n to f s u m m a r yj udg m e n tt o t h e d e fe n d a n ta n dd i s m i s s a lo f h i s 4 2 U. S

. C. § 1 9 8 3 a cti on a l l eg i n g fa i l u re t o pro tect u n d er t h e E i gh th A m en d m e n t. H e ar gue s t hatag e nui ne i s s ue o f m at e r i alfac te xi s t s r e ga r di ng w he t he rt he def endantw as aw ar e o f, or sho ul d h ave bee n aw ar e o f, t he t hre att o hi s sa fet y. United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D Ma rc h 23, 2010 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I Clerk Case: 09-60372 Document: 00511060069 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/23/2010N o. 09- 60372

2 M o rr is co m m e n ce dth is a ctio n a g a in st M a ttie C o ll in s, a captai nat t h e E ast M i ssi ssi pp iC orrec t i on alF aci l i t y. H e asser te d tha tw h i l e he w as i n l i n e f or d i n n er a l a rg e inm a te n a m ed D a n n y Irb y g ot i n f r o n t of h i m an dattem p tedto t ak e h i s f

ood t ray. M orri s s t opp ed h i m bu tt h en I rby pu shed hi m an d threatened hi m , sa yi ng he w as go i ng t o be athi m up andbi t e hi m onc e t he y r e t ur ne d t o t he
z o ne . M o r r i s c o nt e nde d t hatCol l i ns s aw and he ar d t hi s i nc i de ntb utdi d no t hi ng t o s t op itev en t hough he l oo ked di r ec t l y ather w hen he l ef tt he di ni ng hal l
. I rby
a ttack ed M orris after the y h a dretu rn ed to t h eir ho u singu n i t. Vi a af f i da vi t , C ol l i ns a s s e r t e d t hatw hi l e s he w as s t and i ng o ut s i de t he d i n i n g h a l lsh e ob serv ed M orris a n d Irby a rg u i n g. S h e did n ot h ea r a n y th rea ts
an d d i d not observe an y ph ysi cal contact betw een t h e t w o m en . Sh e app roached t he m a nd t o l d t he m t o s t o p ita nd s i tdo w n. The y c o m pl i e d. W e rev i ew de n ov o th e d i stri ct cou rt’ s g r a n t of su m m a ryj u d gm en t. St e w ar tv . Mur

phy , 1 7 4 F .3 d5 3 0 , 5 3 3 (5 th C ir . 1 9 9 9 )

. S u m m a r yju d g m e n t is ap pr o pr i at e i f

t he e vi de nc e s ho w s t hat“ t he r e i s no g e nui ne i s s ue a s t o a ny
m a te r ia l fa c ta n dth a t t h e m o v a n t is e n tit le dto ju d g m e n t a s am a tt e ro f la w .” F ED . R. C IV . P
. 5 6 (c) (2). T o estab l i sh an E i gh th A m en d m en t cl a i m f or fail u re to p r o te c t, a n in m a te m u s t s h o w t h a t a p r is o n o ffic ia l’ s a c t o ro m is s io n re s u lte din h i s bei n g i n carcer ated un der c o ndit i o ns posi n g a sub st an t i alri sk of ser i ou s harm
a n dth a t t h e p r is o n o ffic ia l w a s d e lib e r a te ly in d iffe r e n t t o h is s a fe ty
. Fa r m e rv. Bre nnan , 5 1 1 U .S

. 8 2 5 , 8 3 4 , 8 3 7 (19 9 4 ). M orri s assert ed i n h i s veri f i ed c om pl ai n t t h at C ol l i n s saw an d h e a rd
eve r yt hi ng t hathappened i n t he di ni ng hal l
. The c onc l usi onalas se r t i on t hat C ol l i ns hear d t he al l ege d t hre at f r om I rby i s not w i t hi n M or r i s’ s p erso nal kno w l e dg e a nd, t he r e f o r e , do e s no tc o ns t i t ut e c o m petents um m ar y j udg m e nt
e v id e n c e . Se eHuc ka bay v . Moore , 1 4 2 F .3d 2 3 3 , 2 4 0 n .6 (5 th C ir. 1 9 9 8 ). Acc o r di ngly, M o r r i s ha s no ts ho w n t hat a m at e r i al i s s ue o f fac te xi s t s r e ga r di ng C ol l i n s’ s asser t i on t h at s h e di d n othea r any t h reat s m ad e. B ecau se t h e evi den ce doe s nots how t hatC ol l i ns knew of and del iber at el y di sr egar ded an e xc es sive Case: 09-60372 Document: 00511060069 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/23/2010N o. 09- 60372

3 ri sk to M orris’ s sa fety, th e dist ri ct cou rt d i d n ot err i n de n yin g M orris’ s E i gh th A m e n d m e n t c la im
. S ee New t on v. B lack , 1 3 3 F .3 d 3 0 1 , 3 0 8 (5t h C ir. 1 9 9 8 ); Neals v. Norw ood , 5 9 F .3d 5 3 0 , 5 3 3 (5t h C ir. 1 9 9 5 ). M o r r is ’ s m o tio n s fo rle a v e to s u p p le m e n t t h e re c o r do n a p p e a l a n dto file
a s u p p le m e n ta l b r ie f a r e D E N IE D
. S ee5 TH C IR . R . 2 8 .4 ; T h eri otv. Pari sh of Jef f ers on , 1 8 5 F .3d 4 7 7 , 4 9 1 n .26 (5t h C ir. 1 9 9 9 ). AF F I RMED. Case: 09-60372 Document: 00511060069 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/23/2010