IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-10024

Summary Calendar

TRAVIS BLANK,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant-Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:14-CV-502

Before REAVLEY, PRADO, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Travis Blank, federal prisoner # 16486-078, appeals the grant of 

summary judgment and dismissal with prejudice of his complaint that raised 

claims against the United States of America pursuant to the Federal Tort 

Claims Act (FTCA). Blank, who suffers from Crohn’s disease and related 

ailments, complained of his medical classification and his assignment to a nonmedical prison facility, the Federal Correctional Institute at Oakdale (FCI-

 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

March 2, 2018

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 17-10024 Document: 00514370566 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/02/2018
No. 17-10024

2

Oakdale), complained of the medical treatment that he received at FCIOakdale, and complained of the medical treatment that he received at FCIFort Worth, where he was later transferred. The district court found that 

Blank’s claim regarding his medical classification and designation to a nonmedical prison facility was barred by the discretionary function exception to 

the FTCA because it involved elements of judgment or choice. Accordingly, the 

district court granted summary judgment and dismissed this claim for lack of 

subject matter jurisdiction. With regard to Blank’s remaining medical 

malpractice claims, the district court granted summary judgment, finding that 

Blank failed to provide any evidence, in the form of expert testimony, on the 

essential elements of standard of care, breach, causation, and damages as 

required by state law. See Ayers v. United States, 750 F.2d 449, 452 n.1 (5th 

Cir. 1985). 

We “review a grant of summary judgment de novo, applying the same 

standard as the district court,” and we consider all evidence “in the light most 

favorable to the nonmoving party.” Broussard v. Procter & Gamble Co., 517 

F.3d 767, 769 (5th Cir. 2008) (citations omitted). Summary judgment is 

appropriate “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). “When a proper motion for summary judgment is made, a 

nonmoving party who wishes to avoid judgment by establishing a factual 

dispute must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for 

trial.” Hanks v. Transcon. Gas Pipe Line Corp., 953 F.2d 996, 997 (5th Cir. 

1992) (footnote omitted).

The medical classification and designation of a prisoner to a particular 

prison facility involves elements of judgment or choice so as to bring it within 

the purview of the discretionary function exception to the FTCA. See United 

 Case: 17-10024 Document: 00514370566 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/02/2018
No. 17-10024

3

States v. Gaubert, 499 U.S. 315, 322 (1991). Accordingly, the district court did 

err in dismissing the claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See Castro 

v. United States, 608 F.3d 266, 268 (5th Cir. 2010) (en banc).

With regard to Blank’s remaining medical malpractice claims, the 

district court did not err in granting summary judgment given Blank’s failure 

to provide expert testimony as required by the relevant medical malpractice 

laws of Louisiana and Texas. See Quijano v. United States, 325 F.3d 564, 567 

(5th Cir. 2003); Bailey v. State, 695 So. 2d 557, 559 (La. Ct. App. 1997). We 

also agree with the district court that Blank cannot take advantage of the 

common-knowledge exception to the expert-testimony requirement. See Hood 

v. Phillips, 554 S.W.2d 160, 165-66 (Tex. 1977); Pfiffner v. Correa, 643 So. 2d 

1228, 1234 (La. 1994). The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. 

 Case: 17-10024 Document: 00514370566 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/02/2018