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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-31015

Summary Calendar

SHEDRICK J BRUMFIELD

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

N BURL CAIN; LINDA RAMSEY; RICHARD STALDER; SHIRLEY COODY;

BRUCE DODD; PERRY STAGG; MIA TRAN; RAMAN SINGH; JONATHAN

ROUNDTREE

Defendants-Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Louisiana

USDC No. 3:08-CV-148

Before KING, DAVIS, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Proceeding pro se, Shedrick Brumfield, Louisiana prisoner # 395469,

appeals the dismissal of his civil rights complaint, which claimed: defendants

conspired to deny Brumfield physical therapy and orthopedic shoes, in

retaliation for his successful prosecution of another civil rights lawsuit;

Assistant Warden Stagg and Drs. Tran, Singh, and Roundtree conspired to deny

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

September 17, 2009

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 08-31015

2

Brumfield medical treatment for an infection and life-threatening bowel

problems; and Assistant Warden Dodd responded evasively to Brumfield’s

administrative grievance. The district court adopted the magistrate judge’s

recommendation and dismissed Brumfield’s claims against former Corrections

Secretary Stalder and Dr. Tran for failure to prosecute and, over Brumfield’s

objection, dismissed his claims against the remaining defendants pursuant to

FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim upon which relief can be

granted). The dismissal was without prejudice to any state law claims raised by

Brumfield.

Brumfield has abandoned his claims against former Corrections Secretary

Stalder and Dr. Tran and his claim concerning Assistant Warden Dodd’s

handling of his administrative grievance, by failing to challenge the district

court’s reasons for dismissal. E.g., Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th

Cir. 1993). Brumfield has likewise abandoned his claim that Assistant Warden

Stagg and Drs. Singh and Roundtree denied him treatment for an infection and

bowel problems. Id.

Dismissal of Brumfield’s other claims is reviewed de novo. E.g., In re

Katrina Canal Breaches Litigation, 495 F.3d 191, 205 (5th Cir. 2007), cert.

denied, 128 S. Ct. 1230, 1231 (2008); FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6). We hold Brumfield

has failed to state facts adequate to support a claim of retaliation. See Bell Atl.

Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007); Woods v. Smith, 60 F.3d 1161, 1166

(5th Cir. 1995). “To state a claim of retaliation an inmate must allege the

violation of a specific constitutional right and be prepared to establish that but

for the retaliatory motive the complained of incident . . . would not have

occurred.” Woods, 60 F.3d at 1166. 

 In this regard, Brumfield received medical treatment for his

gastrointestinal and shoulder problems and was provided ankle braces in lieu

of orthopedic shoes. His dissatisfaction with his treatment does not establish

that defendants “‘refused to treat him, ignored his complaints, intentionally
No. 08-31015

3

treated him incorrectly, or engaged in any similar conduct that would clearly

evince a wanton disregard for [his] serious medical needs’”. Domino v. Tex. Dep’t

of Criminal Justice, 239 F.3d 752, 756 (5th Cir. 2001) (quoting Johnson v. Treen,

759 F.2d 1236, 1238 (5th Cir. 1985)).

AFFIRMED.