United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit ____________

No. 22-10447

Summary Calendar

____________

Thomas Sawyer, 

Plaintiff—Appellant, 

versus

Caryn Die; Tammy Messimer; Daniel A. Lakin; 

Ruben Sapin; Marcia Odal; Pepper Bradberry, 

Defendants—Appellees. 

______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 7:15-CV-92

______________________________

Before Smith, Higginson, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Thomas Sawyer, Texas prisoner #579557, appeals the dismissal of his 

42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit after the district court had granted summary judgment. 

Sawyer alleged that the defendants were deliberately indifferent to his serious 

medical needs and used excessive force because they continued to back-cuff 

him despite being aware that he had an injury that caused his shoulder to 

_____________________

* This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

May 30, 2024

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 22-10447 Document: 156-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/30/2024
No. 22-10447

2

dislocate when he was restrained in that manner. On appeal, Sawyer maintains that the court erred in denying him leave to proceed IFP on appeal and 

in granting summary judgment. 

Sawyer also avers that the district court violated his due process and 

equal protection rights and his right to access to the courts because it included a racial designator, BL, in the caption of his case; erred in dismissing 

any new claims that were unrelated to his allegation that he was in imminent 

danger because guards used excessive force in back-cuffing him; abused its 

discretion in severing his claims; abused its discretion in not concluding that 

28 U.S.C. § 1915’s three-strikes provision is unconstitutional; abused its discretion by rejecting his second amended complaint; improperly denied him 

access to the courts; violated his Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment due process rights by dismissing some parties to the suit; and abused its discretion 

by refusing to grant various motions for a temporary restraining order or an 

injunction. 

Sawyer’s notice of appeal does not mention these rulings or evince an 

intent to appeal them. See In re Hinsley, 201 F.3d 638, 641 (5th Cir. 2000). 

Moreover, requiring the defendants to address these issues would be unduly 

prejudicial. Id. Accordingly, we lack jurisdiction to consider them, given that 

they are outside the scope of Sawyer’s appeal. Id. 

To the extent that Sawyer is challenging the denials of his IFP motions, he presented the same or substantially similar arguments in his IFP 

motion before this court. Because this court has already denied Sawyer’s IFP 

motion and because he has paid the filing fee, we need not readdress these 

issues. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997). 

We review a summary judgment de novo. McFaul v. Valenzuela, 

684 F.3d 564, 571 (5th Cir. 2012). Regarding his deliberate-indifference 

claims, Sawyer did not allege facts that establish that defendants Marcia 

Case: 22-10447 Document: 156-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/30/2024
No. 22-10447

3 

Odal, M.D., and Pepper Bradberry, a nurse, “refused to treat him, ignored 

his complaints, intentionally treated him incorrectly, or engaged in any similar conduct that would clearly evince a wanton disregard for any serious medical needs.” Domino v. Tex. Dep’t of Crim. Justice, 239 F.3d 752, 756 (5th Cir. 

2001) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Sawyer’s mere disagreement with the course of his medical treatment and his insistence that he 

should have received further treatment in the form of the issuance of a 

handcuff-modification pass are not sufficient to support a claim of deliberate 

indifference. See Gobert v. Caldwell, 463 F.3d 339, 346 (5th Cir. 2006); Domino, 239 F.3d at 756. 

Regarding his excessive-force claim, Sawyer did not allege facts that 

establish that defendants Tammy Messimer, Caryn Die, Ruben Sapin, and 

Daniel Lakin, correctional officers, applied malicious and sadistic force with 

the intent to cause harm rather than in a good-faith effort to maintain discipline. See Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 6–7 (1992). Moreover, Sawyer 

does not allege facts that demonstrate that the district court erred in concluding that the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity because he 

had not demonstrated that they violated a clearly established constitutional 

right. See Morgan v. Swanson, 659 F.3d 359, 371 (5th Cir. 2011) (en banc) 

The judgment is AFFIRMED. Sawyer’s motions for a temporary 

injunction pending appeal and appointment of counsel are DENIED. 

Case: 22-10447 Document: 156-1 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/30/2024