# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or 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 bac k- 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: 05/30/2024No. 22

- 10447

2 dislocate when he was restrained in that manner . On appeal, Sawyer main

tains that the court erred in denying hi m leave to proceed IFP on appeal and i n 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 in

cluded a racial designator, BL, in the caption of his case; erred in dismissing any new c laims 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 dis

cretion by rejecting his second amended complaint; improperly denied him access to the courts; violated his Fif th and Fourteen th Amendment due pro

cess rights by dismissing some parties to the suit; and abused its discretion by refusing to grant various motions for a temporary re straining order or an injunction

. Sawyer’s notice of appeal does not mention these rulings or ev in ce an intent to appeal the m . S ee In re Hinsley , 201 F.3d 638, 641 (5th Cir. 2000). Moreover, requiring the defendants to address these issues would be unduly preju dicial. Id. Accordingly, we lack jurisdiction to consider the m , given that they are outside the scope of Sawyer’s appeal. Id. To the extent that Sawyer is challenging the denials of his IFP mo

tions, 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 issue s. 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 d id not allege facts that establish that defendants Marcia Case: 22-10447 Document: 156-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/30/2024No. 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 simi

lar conduct that would clearly evince a wanton d isregard for any serious med

i cal 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 dis

agreement with the course of his medical treatment and his insistence t hat 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); Dom

ino , 239 F.3d at 756

. Regarding his excessive

- force claim, Sawyer d id 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 dis ci

pline. See Hudson v. McMillian , 503 U.S. 1, 6–7 (1992). Moreover, Saw yer does not allege facts that demonstrate that the district court erred in con

cluding that the defendants were entitled to quali fied 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 in junction pending appeal and appointment of counsel are **DENIED**

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