United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 21-50646

Summary Calendar

Cody Barnhill, 

Plaintiff—Appellant,

versus

Lindsey Hildreth-White; Warden Nick Clayton; 

Warden David Lofton; Warden Chimdi Akwitti; Warden 

Mrs. FNU Lofton; Major Lawrence Lighten; Omar 

Aguiar, 

Defendants—Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 6:20-CV-826

Before Higginbotham, Graves, and Ho, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Cody Barnhill, Texas prisoner # 1948527, appeals the dismissal of his 

42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit against various defendants, including Food Service 

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited 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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

August 26, 2022

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 21-50646 Document: 00516449782 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/26/2022
No. 21-50646

2

Manager Captain Lindsey Hildreth-White. Barnhill argued that the 

defendants were deliberately indifferent to his health and safety by not 

providing him with “Diet for Health” (DFH) meals that medical officials 

prescribed to him based on his hypertension. Barnhill contends that the 

district court erred when it granted the defendants’ Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 56 motion for summary judgment.

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

same standard as the district court.” Renfroe v. Parker, 974 F.3d 594, 599 (5th 

Cir. 2020), cert. denied, 141 S. Ct. 2519 (2021). In general, summary judgment 

is appropriate if the record discloses “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); see Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). 

Although he argues to the contrary, Barnhill has not demonstrated a 

genuine material factual dispute surrounding the § 1983 supervisory liability 

of the defendants. He does not specify or explain the personal involvement 

of the defendants in the selection of or distribution of his meals. This 

conclusional assertion about the defendants’ supervisory liability is

insufficient to create a genuine factual dispute regarding § 1983 supervisory 

liability. See Freeman v. Tex. Dep’t of Criminal Justice, 369 F.3d 854, 860 (5th 

Cir. 2004); Thompkins v. Belt, 828 F.2d 298, 303 (5th Cir. 1987).

In addition, Barnhill asserts that the district court erred in finding that 

the defendants were immune in their official capacities from his § 1983 claims

because he only sued the defendants in their individual capacities. However, 

Barnhill has not demonstrated any error in the district court’s immunity 

determination because it indeed acknowledged that Barnhill sued the 

defendants in their individual capacities and yet, out of an apparent 

abundance of caution, addressed any claims Barnhill may have made against 

defendants in their official capacities for monetary damages. 

Case: 21-50646 Document: 00516449782 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/26/2022
No. 21-50646

3

Barnhill reiterates his claim that the defendants committed a 

constitutional violation by not giving him the DFH meals. However, he does 

not point to any summary judgment evidence showing that the defendants 

were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs. See Gobert

v. Caldwell, 463 F.3d 339, 345 (5th Cir. 2006). The medical records do not 

establish that Barnhill had a serious medical need that would have been 

apparent to the defendants. See id. at 345 n.12. In fact, the records reflect 

that Barnhill received medication for his hypertension and that his blood 

pressure readings were often near or within normal ranges. Moreover, 

Barnhill does not allege or explain how a substantial risk of serious harm 

existed to his health based upon his diet and meals. See Farmer v. Brennan, 

511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994). Barnhill’s conclusional allegations regarding his 

serious medical needs and the harm he suffered from the defendants’ failure 

to give him DFH meals are insufficient to raise a genuine factual dispute as 

to his claim of deliberate indifference. See Freeman, 369 F.3d at 860. 

Finally, to the extent Barnhill argues that the defendants should have 

resolved any previous administrative grievances in his favor, he has not raised 

a genuine factual dispute of a constitutional violation because he has no 

constitutional right to satisfactory resolution of his administrative grievances. 

See Geiger v. Jowers, 404 F.3d 371, 373-74 (5th Cir. 2005). 

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

Case: 21-50646 Document: 00516449782 Page: 3 Date Filed: 08/26/2022