### I N THE UNI TED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FI F TH CI RCUI T

No. 12-40880 Summary Calendar

RUBEN SOLIS ANDERSON, Plaintiff-Appellant

v. FNU KAYDO, Assistant Warden at Telford; FNU G OODEN, Captain at Telford Unit; JASEN S MITH, Lieutenant at T elford Unit; JAMES BURGESS, Lieutenant at Telford Unit; RICKY LEAKES, Lieutenant at Telford Unit; FNU LAFAYETTE, Lieutena n t at Telford Unit Segregation Department; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER FNU JORDAN, Lieutenant in Segregation Department at T elfo r d ; FNU HOWARD, Lieutenant at T elford Unit Segregation Department; FNU MOORE, (Mrs) Sergeant a t T elford; F NU FORTHEE, Se r g e ant i n Segregation Department at Telford; F NU CLARK, S ergeant in Telford S egregation Department; L. JOHNSON, (Mrs) Sergeant at T e l ford Segreation D epartment; B. SIKES, Sergeant at Telford U nit Segregation Department; ERMA LEE, Correctional Offci e r V at Telford Unit; FNU WILLIAMS, Corr e ctional Officer IV in Segregation Department at Telford; FNU WATCH, Correctional Officer IV in Segregation D e p a rtment 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 U n i t e d S t a te s C o u rt o f A p p e al s F i f t h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D Aug ust 7, 2013 Ly l e W . Cayce Clerk Case: 12-40880 Document: 00512334417 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/07/2013No. 12-40880

Before JONES, DENNIS, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Ruben Solis Anderson, Texas pr i s o n e r # 5 96151, appeals the summary judgment dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint in which he argu ed that prison o ff

i c i als failed to investigate his complaints, failed to protect him, retaliated against him, and denied him access to courts. Specifically, Anderson alleges that the defendants s pread rumors that he was a snitch, a child m olester, and HIV positive in an effort t o get him raped a nd m urdered by other p risoners; the defe n d a n t s a n d o ther prisoners threatened t o r ape and murder him; the defendants and other prisoners spied on him through pipes in his wall and tried to enter his c ell through his toilet; the defendants retaliated against him after he filed grievances against them; and the defenda n t s i nterfered with his incoming and outgoing mail. This court reviews a district court’s ruling on summary j udgment 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.” F E D
. R. C IV
. P. 56(a). A genuine dispute exists if a reasonable j ury c o u l d r eturn a verdict in f

avor of the nonmovant. Hathaway v. Bazany , 507 F.3d 312, 319 (5th Cir. 2007). Initially, Anderson has failed to address th e d istrict court’s findings

r e garding his failure to i nvestigate claims and the district court’s dismis s a l o f

u n s e rved defendants. Therefore, these issues are deemed abandoned. See Yohe y v. Collins , 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993).

* Purs uant to 5 T H C I R

. R

. 47. 5, the court hasd eterm ined that this op inion s houldnot be p ublis hed and is not p reced ent excep t und er the lim ited circum s tances s et f orth in 5 T H C I R

. R. 47. 5. 4. 2 Case: 12-40880 Document: 00512334417 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/07/2013No. 12-40880

Further, because Anderson alleged no physical injury and came forward with no evidence of physical injury, his failure to p rotect claim under the Eighth Amendment f

ails. 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 ot her prisoners’ actions; thus, he is not entitled to any c ompensatory damages arising o ut o f those incidents. See Geiger

v. J owers, 404 F.3d 371, 374 (5th Cir. 2005); s ee also Robertson v. Plano City of Texas , 7 0 F.3d 21, 24 (5th Cir. 1995) (verbal threats do not ri se to the level of a constitutional violation). An d e r s on i s not e ntitled to obtain punitive damages

or injunctive r elief because h e h a s f a i l ed t o 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 1 93, 198 (5th Cir. 2007); see also Geiger , 404 F.3d at 375. Although Ande r son contends that he suffered retaliation after filing grievances against the defend a n t s , his contentions are wholly conclusory, and he has not alleged a chronology o f events from which r e taliation may be plausibly i n f

e r r e d

. See Woods v. Smith , 60 F.3d 1161, 1166 ( 5th C ir. 1995). Anderson’s claim that defendants denied him access to courts b y int e rf ering with his outgoing mail is without merit because h e has not shown that his position as
a litigant wa s p rejudiced. See Walker v. Navarro County Jail , 4 F.3d 4 10, 413 (5th C ir. 1993)

. His c laim regarding interference with his i ncoming 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 d efendants retaliated against him b y infecting him with a virus was not raised in the district court, and therefore w e w i l l n o t a d dress it here. See Stewart G lass & Mirror, Inc. v. U.S. Auto Glass D iscount C enters, Inc. , 200 F.3d 307, 3 16-17 ( 5th Ci r . 2000). For the same reason, we do not address his contention regarding class certification.

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

In light of the foregoing, Anderson has n ot shown that the distric t 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