* 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should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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. 07-40782

Summary Calendar

JOEL ROMERO

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

JEFFREY LANN, Lieutenant at Telford Unit; BRANDI R GRAY, Correctional

Officer at Telford Unit; D KAY SHELTON, Mid Level Practitioner; DAVID

MOORE, Nurse Clinician

Defendants-Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 5:06-CV-82

Before WIENER, CLEMENT, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Joel Romero, Texas prisoner # 899767, filed the instant 42 U.S.C. § 1983

suit to seek redress for various wrongs allegedly committed by several officials

at the facility where he was incarcerated. The district court granted the

defendants’ motion for summary judgment and dismissed Romero’s suit. Romero

now appeals that dismissal. This court reviews the grant of a motion for

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

December 29, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 07-40782

2

summary judgment de novo. Threadgill v. Prudential Sec. Group, Inc., 145 F.3d

286, 292 (5th Cir. 1998). Summary judgment is appropriate if the record

discloses “that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the

movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” FED. R. CIV. P. 56(c). To

raise a valid § 1983 claim, a plaintiff must prove that a state actor infringed his

constitutional rights. Resident Council v. United States Dep't of Hous. and

Urban Dev., 980 F.2d 1043, 1050 (5th Cir. 1993).

The appellant argues thatthe district court erred by dismissing his claims

of deliberate indifference to serious medical needs and retaliation. He also

contends that the district court wrongly rejected his challenges to his

disciplinary convictions. He argues that the defendants’ deliberate indifference

is evidenced by his medical records, which he alleges show that, in one instance,

his medication was ordered two weeks later than two ofthe defendants said they

provided it to him. Romero also contends that the disciplinary charges against

him were fabricated. Romero’s conclusional assertions on these claims are

insufficient to establish a valid § 1983 claim or to show that the district court

erred by rejecting these claims. See Babb v. Dorman, 33 F.3d 472, 476 (5th Cir.

1994).

We reject Romero’s assertion that a retaliatory motive is shown by the

reversal of one of his disciplinary convictions. An examination of the record

confirms that one conviction was overturned, but there is nothing in the record

to suggest that this action was due to a finding that the charge was false or was

otherwise flawed in such a way as to support Romero’s assertions that the

charge was brought solely to retaliate against him. See Woods v. Smith, 60 F.3d

1161, 1166 (5th Cir. 1995). Romero’s challenge to the district court’s rejection

of his claim concerning the denial of two meals over an eight month period fails

because this action was de minimis. See Morris v. Powell, 449 F.3d 682, 684 (5th

Cir.), cert. denied, 127 S.Ct. 596 (2006).
No. 07-40782

3

The district court did not err by granting the defendants’ motion for

summary judgment before Romero could complete discovery because Romero did

not establish that he was entitled to the discovery he sought. See Harlow v.

Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 817-18 (1982). Romero’s contention that the district

court erred by not recognizing his claims concerning his right to file grievances

and to have them reviewed likewise does not show error in connection with the

district court’s judgment. See Jones v. North Carolina Prisoners Labor Union,

433 U.S. 119, 137-38 (1977) (Burger, J., concurring); Geiger v. Jowers, 404 F.3d

371, 373-74 (5th Cir. 2005)). The record controverts Romero’s assertion that the

district court erred by making credibility judgments when analyzing the parties’

motions for summary judgment.

There is also no error with respect to district court’s decision to grant the

defendants’ motion for summary judgment on Romero’s claim concerning their

alleged violation of prison regulations. See Hernandez v. Estelle, 788 F.2d 1154,

1158 (5th Cir. 1986). Romero’s claim that the defendants engaged in a pattern

of retaliatory behavior is marked by “an excessively high level of generality” and

is unavailing. See Roberts v. City of Shreveport, 397 F.3d 287, 294 (5th Cir.

2005). Finally, our review of the record contradicts Romero’s arguments that the

district court improperly interpreted several cases.

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.