Pursuant to5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinionshould not * be publishe d and is not precedent except under the limited circu mstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 31015 Su m m ar y Cal endar

SHE DR I CKJ BRU M FI ELD Pl ai nt i f f

- Appe l l ant

v. N B URL CAI N; LI NDA RAM S EY; RI CHARD S TA LDER ; S HI RL EYCOO DY; BRUCE DODD; P ERRYS TA GG; M IA T RAN; RAM AN S I NGH ; J ON AT H AN ROUN DTRE E D efen da n t s- A pp el l ees

A pp ealf

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rt f o rt he M i ddl e D i s t r i c to f Lo ui s i ana U SD C N o. 3: 08- C V

- 148
B ef ore K IN G , D AV IS, an d B A R K S D A L E , C i rcui tJu dg es. P E R C U R IA M: * Proc ee di ng pro se , Shedri c k B r um f i el d, Loui si ana pr i so ner# 39 5469, a p p ea l s th e d i sm i ssa lo f h i s civilri gh ts com p l a i n t, w h i ch cl a i m ed : de fen d a n ts c o n s p ir e dto d e n yB r u m fie ldp h y s ic a l th e r a p ya n do r th o p e d i c s h o e s , in
re ta lia ti on f

or h i s su cces sful pro secu ti on of a n oth er civilri gh ts l a w su i t; Ass i s t antW ar de n St ag g andD r s . Tr an, Si ngh , a nd R o undt r e e co ns pi r e d t o de ny United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D September

17, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 08- 31015

2 B rum f i el d m edi calt reat m en tf or an i n fect i on an d l i fe- t h reat en i n g bow el p r o b le m s ; a n dA s s is t a n tW a r d e n D o d dr e s p o n d e de v a s iv e lyto B r u m fi e ld ’s
a d m in is t r a t iv e g r ie v a n c e . T h e d i s t r ic tc o u r ta d o p t e dth e m a g is t r a t e ju d g e ’s
r e c o m m e nda t i o n a nd d i s m i s s e d Br um f i e l d’ s c l ai m s ag ai ns tf o r m e rCor r e c t i o ns S e c r e t a r yS t a ld e ra n dD r . T r a n fo rfa il u r e to p r o s e c u t e a n d , o v e rB r u m fi e ld ’s ob j ection , dism i sse dh i s cl a i m s ag a i n st t h e rem a i n i n g d efen d a n ts pu rsu a n t t o F ED . R. C IV . P. 1 2 (b ) ( 6 ) (fa i l ur e t o s t a t e a c l a i m up o n whi c h r e l i e f c a n be gr ant ed)
. The di sm i ss alw as w i t houtpr ej udi c e t o a ny s t at e l aw c l ai m s r ai se d by Brum f i e l d. B rum f i el d h as aba n don ed h i s c l ai m s agai n stf orm er C orrec t i on s Se c r e t ary S t a ld e ra n dD r . T r a n a n dh is c la im c o n c e r n in gA s s is t a n tW a r d e n D o d d ’s h an dl i n g of

h is ad m i n i st rat ive gri evan ce, by fai l i n g t o chal l en ge t h e di st ri ct c o u r t’s re a s o n s fo rd is m is s a l. E
. g. , Yohey v. Col l i ns , 98 5 F
. 2 d22 2 , 22 4 -25 ( 5 th C i r. 199 3)
. B rum f

i el d has l i kew i se aba n don ed hi s cl ai m t h at A ssi st an tW arden St ag g andD r s . Si nghand R o undt r e e deni e d hi m t r e at m e ntf o ra n i nfe c t i o n a nd b o w e l p r o b le m s . I

d. D i sm i ssalof

Br um f i e l d’ s o t he rc l ai m s i s r e vi e w e d de no vo . E
. g. , I n re K at r i na Cana lBr e ac he s Li t iga t i on , 4 9 5 F .3 d1 9 1 , 2 0 5 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 7 ), ce rt. d enie d , 1 2 8 S . C t. 1 2 3 0 , 1 2 3 1 (2 0 0 8 ); F ED . R. C IV . P
. 1 2 (b )(6 ). W e h o ldB r u m fie ld h a s fa ile d to s ta te fa c ts a d e q u a te to s u p p o r t a cla im o f r e ta lia tio n . S eeB ell A tl. Co rp . v . Tw o m b ly , 5 5 0 U .S . 5 4 4 , 5 5 5 (2 0 0 7 ); W o o d s v . S m ith , 60 F. 3d 1161, 1166 ( 5t h Ci r . 1 99 5)
. “To s t at e ac l ai m o f r e t ali at i o n a n i nm at e m us tal l e ge t he vi o l at i o n o f

as pe c i f

i c c o ns t i t ut i o nal r i ght and be pr e pa r e d t o e s t ab l i s h t hatb ut forthe r e t a l i a t o r ym o t iv e t he c o m p l a i ne do f i nc i d e nt. . . wo ul dn o th ave occu rred
. ” W

o o ds , 6 0 F .3 da t 1 1 6 6
. In th is re g a r d , B r u m fie ldre c e i v e dm e d ic a l tr e a tm e n t fo rh is gastr oi n t est i n alan d sh ou l der probl em s and w as p ro v i ded an kle braces i n l i eu of ort h oped i c s h oes. H i s di ssat i sfact i on w i t h hi s t reat m en tdoes not es t abli sh th a t d e fe n d a n ts “‘re fu s e dto tr e a t h im , ig n o r e d h is co m p la in ts , in te n tio n a llyN o. 08- 31015

3 tr e a te d h i m in c o r r e c tly , o re n g a g e din a n ys im ila rco n d u c t t h a t w o u ldcle a r ly
e v in c e aw a n to n d is r e g a r d fo r[h is ] s e r io u s m e d ic a l n e e d s ’”. D o m in o v . T ex . D e p ’t of C ri m i n al Ju st i ce , 239 F. 3d 752, 756 ( 5t h C i r . 2001) ( quot i ng Joh n son v. Tree n , 7 5 9 F .2d 1 2 3 6 , 1 2 3 8 (5t h C ir. 1 9 8 5 )). AF F I RMED.