IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-40880

Summary Calendar

RUBEN SOLIS ANDERSON,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

FNU KAYDO, Assistant Warden at Telford; FNU GOODEN, Captain at Telford

Unit; JASEN SMITH, Lieutenant at Telford Unit; JAMES BURGESS,

Lieutenant at Telford Unit; RICKY LEAKES, Lieutenant at Telford Unit; FNU

LAFAYETTE, Lieutenant at Telford Unit Segregation Department;

CORRECTIONAL OFFICER FNU JORDAN, Lieutenant in Segregation

Department at Telford;FNU HOWARD, Lieutenant at Telford Unit Segregation

Department; FNU MOORE, (Mrs) Sergeant at Telford; FNU FORTHEE,

Sergeant in Segregation Department at Telford; FNU CLARK, Sergeant in

Telford Segregation Department; L. JOHNSON, (Mrs) Sergeant at Telford

Segreation Department; B. SIKES, Sergeant at Telford Unit Segregation

Department; ERMA LEE, Correctional Offcier V at Telford Unit; FNU

WILLIAMS, Correctional Officer IV in Segregation Department at Telford; FNU

WATCH, Correctional Officer IV in Segregation Department at Telford Unit;

CORRECTIONAL OFFICER FNU JORDAN, Grievance Coordinator at Telford;

FNU MAYS, Internal Affairs Investigator at Telford,

Defendants-Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 5:11-CV-138

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

August 7, 2013

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 12-40880 Document: 00512334417 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/07/2013
No. 12-40880

Before JONES, DENNIS, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Ruben Solis Anderson, Texas prisoner # 596151, appeals the summary

judgment dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint in which he argued that

prison officials failed to investigate his complaints, failed to protect him,

retaliated against him, and denied him access to courts. Specifically, Anderson

alleges that the defendants spread rumors that he was a snitch, a child molester,

and HIV positive in an effort to get him raped and murdered by other prisoners;

the defendants and other prisoners threatened to rape and murder him; the

defendants and other prisoners spied on him through pipes in his wall and tried

to enter his cell through his toilet; the defendants retaliated against him after

he filed grievances against them; and the defendants interfered with his

incoming and outgoing mail. 

This court reviews a district court’s ruling on summary judgment de novo,

employing the same standard used by the district court. McFaul v. Valenzuela,

684 F.3d 564, 571 (5th Cir. 2012). A district court “shall grant summary

judgment if the movant shows 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). A genuine dispute exists if a reasonable jury could return a

verdict in favor of the nonmovant. Hathaway v. Bazany, 507 F.3d 312, 319 (5th

Cir. 2007). 

Initially, Anderson has failed to address the district court’s findings

regarding his failure to investigate claims and the district court’s dismissal of

unserved defendants. Therefore, these issues are deemed abandoned. See Yohey

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

* 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.

2

 Case: 12-40880 Document: 00512334417 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/07/2013
No. 12-40880

Further, because Anderson alleged no physical injury and came forward

with no evidence of physical injury, his failure to protect claim under the Eighth

Amendment fails. See Jones v. Greninger, 188 F.3d 322, 326 (5th Cir. 1999); 42

U.S.C. § 1997e(e). Anderson did not allege that he suffered any physical injury

as a result of defendants’ actions or other prisoners’ actions; thus, he is not

entitled to any compensatory damages arising out of those incidents. See Geiger

v. Jowers, 404 F.3d 371, 374 (5th Cir. 2005); see also Robertson v. Plano City of

Texas, 70 F.3d 21, 24 (5th Cir. 1995) (verbal threats do not rise to the level of a

constitutional violation). Anderson is not entitled to obtain punitive damages

or injunctive relief because he has failed to show that it is likely that he can

successfully prove a constitutional violation based on the defendants’ failure to

protect him. See Hutchins v. McDaniels, 512 F.3d 193, 198 (5th Cir. 2007); see

also Geiger, 404 F.3d at 375. 

Although Anderson contends that he suffered retaliation after filing

grievances against the defendants, his contentions are wholly conclusory, and

he has not alleged a chronology of events from which retaliation may be

plausibly inferred. See Woods v. Smith, 60 F.3d 1161, 1166 (5th Cir. 1995). 

Anderson’s claim that defendants denied him access to courts by interfering with

his outgoing mail is without merit because he has not shown that his position as

a litigant was prejudiced. See Walker v. Navarro County Jail, 4 F.3d 410, 413

(5th Cir. 1993). His claim regarding interference with his incoming mail was not

raised in Anderson’s opening brief; thus, we do not address the claim here. See

United States v. Rodriguez, 602 F.3d 346, 360 (5th Cir. 2010). Anderson’s claim

that the defendants retaliated against him by infecting him with a virus was not

raised in the district court, and therefore we will not address it here. See

Stewart Glass & Mirror, Inc. v. U.S. Auto Glass Discount Centers, Inc., 200 F.3d

307, 316-17 (5th Cir. 2000). For the same reason, we do not address his

contention regarding class certification. 

3

 Case: 12-40880 Document: 00512334417 Page: 3 Date Filed: 08/07/2013
No. 12-40880

In light of the foregoing, Anderson has not shown that the district court

erred in granting the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. See McFaul,

684 F.3d at 571. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. Anderson’s

motion for the appointment of counsel is DENIED.

4

 Case: 12-40880 Document: 00512334417 Page: 4 Date Filed: 08/07/2013