### NUM BER 13-07- 0009 2-CV 

## COURT OF A PP EA LS T H I R T E E N T H D I S T R I C T O F T E X AS CORPUS CHRI ST I - 

## E D I N B U R G
KEIT H M . C OLE , A pp ellan t,
v. C H A R L E S F R I ZZ E L L , D O N N A LA T H A M, A ND C HA RL ES W

A KEF IELD , A pp ellees . On ap pe al f rom th e 1 65t h Dist rict C ou rt o f H arris C ou nty , T exas .



## ME MOR A N D U M OP I N I ON Be fo re C hie f J us tice Vald ez an d Ju stice s Ga rza an d Be na v ide s

M em o ra n d u m Op in io n b y J u st ic e Ga rza Appel lan t, Kei th M . C ole , an inmat e c onfined in t h e E a stham Un itof the Texas Dep artment of Cr imi nal Ju sti ce (“ TDC J” ) syste m, appea ls the tr ial co urt’ s g ra nti ng of joi nt moti ons for s ummary

j udg ment fil ed by

appel lee s, Cha rl es Fr izz ell , D onna Latham, a ndA l th o u g h C o l e i n c l u d e d a n i n c o r r e c t s tylin g o f th e c a s e : “ Kei th M. C ole v. D onna Fri z z el l, D onna 1 L a th a m , a n dC h a r

le s W a k e fie ld , ” i t i s cl eart hat he t akes i ssue wi t h t he a ct i ons o fT exas Depar t m ent of C rim i n a l J u s ti c e (“T D C J ”) e m p l o y e e s C h a rle s F rizze l l , D o n n a L a th a m , a n d G a ry W a k e fie l d

. G ar yW akefi el d i s t he Assi st ant W ar den of t he T D C J East ham U ni t , C har l es Fri z z el l i s t he Chi efof Un i t Cl a s s i f i c a t i o n o ft h e TDCJ E a s t h a m Un i t , a n d Do n n a L a t h a m i s a r e g i s t e r e d n u r s e w o r ki n g a t t h e TDCJ E a s th a m U n i t.

O n ap peal , C ol e no t es t hat he has f i l ed n um er ous co m pl ai nt s wi t h T D C J off i ci al s “ i n r egr ar d [ si c] 2 to b e i n g c o m p e l l e d to w o rk i n th e fi e l d s d e s p i te s u ff e rin g fr o m s e v e ra l a i l m e n ts

. I.E . [ s i c ] S HOULDE R P A I N, FOOT PA I N, M E M ORY LOS S , TI RE DNE S S , DRUN K, DI ZZ Y, HYP OG LY CE M I A , CONS TA NT HUNGE R, H E AT S T R E S S , H Y P E R T E N S IO N , D IAB E T IS [s i c ] C H EST PA I N S. ” I n fac t , C ol e ad m i t s t hat he was a habi t ual v i si t orof

t he m edi cal fa ci l i t i es i n t he East ham U ni t

. C ol e not ed t hat “h e had f i l ed num er ous ot hersi ck c a ll r e q u e s t [s ic ] a n d m e d ic a l c o m p la in ts n o t lis te d in th e s e e x h ib its .” T h e e v id e n c e d e m o n s tr a te s th a t C o le w as se en an d t rea t ed by m ed i c al pe rso nn el at t he E as t ha m U ni t ea c h t i m e h e h ad a c om pl ai nt. M ore ove r, t he r ecor d con t ai ns an aff i dav i t f r om B ob by M

. V i ncent , M

. D

. , t he M edi cal D i r ect oratt he Est el l e/ R egi onal M ed i c al F ac i l i t yo f t he T D C J

. U po n revi ew i ng C ol e’ s e nti re m ed i c al re c ord , D r. V i nc en t c on c l ud ed t ha t t he re was “ no co nsi st ent ev i dence t ha t woul d i ndi cat e t hat anydel i ber at e i ndi ff er ence occur r ed co ncer ni ng a ny m edi cal i ssue i n M r
. C ol e’ s m edi cal f i l es. T he ca r e pr ov i ded t o t hi s pat i ent byal l ent i t i es ap pear s t o ha v e be en a p p ro p ria te i n e v e ry w a y .” 2 Gary W akef ield. By

three issue s, Co le cont end s that : (1) the trial court erred in 1
conc lud ing thathe fai led to prov e hi s c lai m for del ibe ra te i ndi fference pursuantto the Ei g hth A mendment of the U nit ed St ates C onst it uti on; (2)the tr ial courterred i n c oncl udi ng that appel lee s were ent it led to q ual ified i mmunity ; and ( 3) he rais ed fact is sues that precl uded t he tri al cour

t from g ra nti ng appel lee s’ moti ons for s ummary j udg ment. SeeU .S. C ON ST
. am en d. V II I. W e affi r m. I. F A CT UA L A ND P ROC EDURA L B A CKGRO UND Col e, proceed ing pro se, all eg es that he has been dia g nosed w it h sev eral lifethreateni ng di seas es and ot her pai nful ai lment s w hil e i n ca rcerated, i ncl udi ng di ag noses of hea rtd i s e a s e o n A p r i l 1 4 , 2 0 0 4 , a rt h r i t i s i n h i s r i g h ts h o u l d e r o n A p r i l 1 0 , 2 0 0 2 , and hyperten sion. Cole conte nds th at th e actio ns of TDCJ em ployees have exacerbat ed h is 2 inj ur ies and medic al condi ti ons by forc ing hi m to workin the pr is on fiel ds on th e “ hoeC o l e a l s o c o m p l a i n s o n a p p e a l th a t T D C J o ff i c i a ls , p a rti c u l a rlyW a k e fie l d , w e re re q u i re d “to 3 d e te r m in e w h e n a n d ifw e a th e rc o n d itio n s w a r r e n te d [s i c ] a n y s p e c ia l s a f e ty p r e c a u tio n s .” B e c a u s e o fh is d i a b e t e s a n d h y p e r t e n s i o n , Co l e c o n t e n d s t h a t h e “ S HOUL D [ h a v e ] B E [ e n ] E XCLUDE D F ROM W ORK U N D ER C O N D I T I O N S O F EX T R EM E H EA T AN D H U M I D I T Y. ” Speci f i cal l y , C ol e not es t hat he was expose d t o he at i ndi ces of

ov er 105 degr ees Fahr enhei t ev en t hough he al l eges t hat he shoul d no t hav e be en wor k i ng i n t he fi el ds on t he “hoe sq ua d” w he n t he t em pe rat ure w as 85 de gre es F ah ren he i t or hi gh er.

C ol e’ s or i gi nal pet i t i on was br oughtw i t hi n t he pur v i ew of t i t l e 42, sect i on 1983 oft he Uni t ed St at es 4 C o d e
. See 42 U

. S. C

. § 1983 ( W est 200 3 & Supp. 200 5)

. Sect i on 1 983 st at es, i n r el ev ant par t : “ Ever yper son who, und ercol orof a ny s t atut e, or di nance, orr egul at i on, cust om , orusag e, of anyst at e .
. . subj ect s, or causes t o be subj ect ed, anyci t i z en o ft he Uni t ed St ates .

. . t o t he d epr i v at i on o fanyr i ght s, pr i v i l eges, or im m u n itie s s e c u r e d b y th e C o n s tit u tio n a n d la w s , s h a ll b e lia b le to th e p a r ty in j u r e d in a n a c tio n a t la w , s u it i n e qu i t y , or ot he r prop er pro c ee di ng for r ed res s
. . . . ” I d. 3 sq uad.” Col e ass erts that TDC J employees w ere del ibe ra tel y ind ifferent to his m edi cal

3 condi ti ons, and as a resul t, he was subj ect ed to cruel and unusu al puni shmenti n v iol ati on of the Ei g hth A mendment of the U nit ed St ates C onst it uti on. See i d. On D ecember

6, 2004, Col e fil ed hi s ori g ina l peti ti on w it h the tr ial co urt, ass erti ng that TDC J e mployees v iol a te d h is Ei g hth A mendment r ig hts to be free from cr uel and
unusu al puni shmentby di spl ay ing del ibe ra te ind ifferenc e to his ser iou s medi cal needs and seekin g mo n e t a ry da ma ges. See id. Sp eci fical ly , C ole al leg ed th at s uch del ibe ra te 4 ind ifferenc e resul ted i n “ li mite d mobi li ty , excr uci ati ng pai n i n the r ig ht c lav ic al, and the
ex acer bati on of hi s h ear t di seas e.” C ole named t he foll ow ing parti es in his or ig ina l peti ti on in the ir i ndividual an d of f icial capacitie s: TDCJ, the Univ e rs it y o f T exas Medical Branch (“UTMB”), Gar

y W akefi el d, C ha r l es Frizz ell, Francis Cherian, Robert Young, Davi d Onu ors, Don na Lat ham, Ve rn ette Por ter , and Betty

W il li ams. Cher ian , Yo ung , Onours, Por ter , and W il li ams were notproper ly se rv ed with proces s a nd, t herefore, did not file an ans w er or app ear in this case . As such, th ey are no t parties to this app eal. On May 12, 200 5, T DCJ and UT MB f il e d a plea to the jurisdiction . Th e trial court g ran te d th e pl ea to th e j ur i s di cti on o n Octo be r 2 4, 2 00 5, t he reb y

d i s mi s s i ng C ol e’ s c l ai ms as to TD CJ and UTM B. Fr izz ell , Lat ham, and W akefie ld r e m ain ed par ti es to t he s uit

.4

Appel lee s j oin tl y

fil ed tradi ti onal and no- ev ide nce moti ons for s ummary j u dg ment on Se p te m b e r 2 5, 20 06, w hic h were s ubseq uentl y g ra nted on N ov ember 27, 2006. On Decem ber 12 , 2 0 0 6 , C o le f il ed h is notice of app eal an d a m otion w ith the trial court requesting f indings of

fact an d co n c lu s io ns of law . Th e trial court de nied Cole’s req uest for findi ng s o f factand conc lus ion s o f law on M arch 22, 2 007. This appeal ens ued. II. S TA NDA RD OF R EVI EW A . Traditional Motion for Summary Judgment Und er a t ra dit ion al moti on for summar y jud g ment, the mov ant must est abl is h tha t no mater ial fact is sue ex is ts and that it is enti tl ed to jud g ment as a matter of law

. T EX
. R. C IV
. P. 1 66a( c) ; Sw. Elec. Power C o. v . G ra nt , 73 S.W .3d 2 11, 2 15 ( Tex . 200 2) ; Alan iz v. Hoyt , 105 S.W .3d 330, 34 5 ( Tex . Ap p.–C or pus Chr is ti 2003, no p et.) ; Mow bray v. Avery, 76 S. W

. 3 d 6 6 3 , 6 9 0 ( Te x . A p p
. – C o r p u s C h r i s t i 2 0 0 2 , p e t

. d e n i e d )

. Aft e r t h e m ov ant produce s e v ide nce suffici ent t o s how i t is enti tl ed to summary judg ment, the no n- mov ant must then pre sentev ide nce ra is ing a facti ss ue. See W alker v. Harris , 924 S.W .2d 3 75, 377 ( Tex . 199 6)

. B. No- Ev idence Mot ion for Summary Judgment Texa s R u l e o f C i v i l P ro c e d u re 1 6 6 a ( i ) p ro v i d e s t h a t“ a p a rty w i t h o u tp re s e n t ing
sum ma ry

judgmen t evi den ce ma y move for sum ma ry

judgmen t on th e ground th at th ere is no e v ide nce of on e o r m o re e ss enti al ele ments of a cl aim or defense on w hic h an adv erse par

ty woul d hav e the burden of proof." T EX
. R. C IV
. P. 16 6a(i). Th e trial court
mu st grantthe m otion if th e non -movant does not prod uce su mm aryjudgmen t evi den ce ra is ing a g enui ne iss ue of m ater ial facton each ele ment c hal len g ed. Id. ; Mack Trucks v.5

Tam ez , 206 S.W .3d 5 72, 5 82 ( Tex . 20 0 6 ). The n on- mov ant mus t produce more tha n a sc int il la of proba ti v e ev ide nce to rais e an is sue of materi al fact. Oasis Oil Corp. v. Koch Ref . C o. L. P. , 60 S. W .3d 248 , 252 (Tex. App. –Corpu s Christi 200 1, pe t. de nied ). M o re tha n a scintilla of

ev iden ce exists w hen the evidence "rises t o a l e ve l th at w ould ena ble
re asona ble and fair-mi nded peopl e to differ in th e ir conc lus ion s." Mer re ll D ow Phar

m s., Inc . v . Havner , 953 S .W .2d 7 06, 7 11 (Te x . 199 7). W e "m ust examin e the entire record in the l ig ht mos t fav ora ble to the n on- mov ant, ind ulg ing ev er y reason abl e i nferenc e and
re so lv ing any

doubt s a g ain st the mot ion ." Sudan v. Sudan , 199 S.W .3d 291 , 292 (Te x. 2006)( per

cu ri am); see City of K

eller v. Wils on , 168 S.W .3d 802 , 824 (Tex. 2005 ). III . A N AL Y S IS In his f irst and th ird issues, Cole argues tha t app ellees kn ew of and delibe ra tely disrega rd e d h is serious me dical con dition s. Specif ically , Cole take s issue w ith his work assignme nt in the f ie ld s o n the “ho e squad” de spite h aving hea rt disease , an arth ritic shoul der , di abetes , and hy perte n sio n . Col e al so tak es is sue w it h Lat ham’s al leg ed “inade quate a ssessm entof chest pa in and h yp e rt ensive eme rg encie s and urgencies” in the “n ursi ng tr iag e” uni t. Appel lee s c ounter by arg uin g thatco mpetent summar y j udg ment
ev ide nce demonst ra tes thatC ole ’s medi cal needs w ere add re ss ed and ev alu ated; t h e re fo re , h is cl a im s fo r d e li b e ra t e in d if fe re n c e m u s tfa il a s a m a tt e r o f la w. A . D elib erat e In di ff

eren ce T he governme nt is required to provide me dical care for its prisoners. Estelle v. Gamble , 429 U .S. 97, 1 03 ( 1976)

. In Este lle , t he U nit ed St ates Supreme C our t c oncl uded that "del ibe ra te i ndi fference to s er iou s medi cal needs of pr is oners c onst it utes the6

'unn ecessa ry

a nd w ant on inf liction of pain' proscribe d by the Eighth Am end me nt.” Id. at 1 0 4 (quo ti n g Greggv. Georgia , 428 U .S. 153, 173 ( 1976) ); County of El Pas o v . D or ado , 180 S.W .3d 854 , 86 3 (Te x . App .–E l Paso 20 05, pet. den ied) (holdin g tha t a prisone r’s ri g ht t o be free from jai l off ic ial s’ del ibe ra te i ndi fference to t hei r ser iou s medi cal ne eds spr ing s from both procedu ra l and s ubst anti v e due proces s)

. Therefore, i n order to est abl is h l iab il ity , t he i nmate mus t "s how thata s tate off ic ial ac te d with del ibe ra te ind iffere n ce t o a s ubst anti al ri sk of ser iou s medi cal har m and t hat i nju ri es re sul ted." Coun ty of El Paso , 18 0 S. W .3 d at86 3 (quo ti n g W agner v. Bay Cit y, 227 F .3d 3 16, 3 24 ( 5th Cir. 2000)). In prov ing del ibe ra te i ndi fference, the inmat e mustprov e tha t t he j ail off ic ial was subje ctiv ely aware of

facts f rom which an inferen ce could be drawn that a substa ntial risk of ser iou s h ar m ex is ted a nd th en actual ly drew su ch an i nferenc e. Far m er v. Br ennan , 511 U. S. 825, 837 ( 1994) ; see Cou nty of El Paso , 180 S .W .3d a t 863 . Th e plain tif f mustalso esta blish tha t the jail of f icial’s respo nse to the perce iv ed ri sk of harm shows tha t of f icial’s del ibe ra te i ndi fference. Far m er , 511 U.S. at 84 4-45 . Esse n t ia ll y, a n inm ate must dem onst rate th at th e stat e of f icial acted w ith culpa bility clearly beyond t h a tof

mere neg li g ence. McClendo n v. City of Columbia , 305 F.3 d 314 , 326 (5t h Cir. 20 02) (en ba nc) (p er cu ri am). "O nly

the most eg re g iou s o ff ic ial co nductca n be sai d to be ar bit ra ry i n the
cons ti tuti onal se nse. " Id. a t 32 6 (cit in g Coun ty of Sacramentov. Lew is , 523 U .S. 833, 846 (199 8)). The beh avior mu st rise to a level that " shocks th e con science "; th e du e proce ss g uarantee "does not e ntai l a body of cons ti tuti onal l aw

i mposi n g l iabil ity

w henev er someone cl oaked w it h s tate autho rit y ca uses har m." Id. (cit in g Lew is , 523 U.S. at 84 8).7

"Lia bil ity for n eg li g entl y

i nflicted h ar m is ca teg or ic all y beneat h the th re sh o ld of
cons ti tuti onal due proces s." Id. B. Discuss ion Col e’s cl aims ag ain st Latham p ertai n t o a s ing le tr iag e v is iton A ug ust25, 2003. Col e does not ass ert t hat L atham i g nored hi s medi cal co nditi on al tog ether ; i nst ead, he dis pute s the ade q uacy of Latham’ s t re atment and as ser ts that she g av e hi m an “inade quate a ssessm ent .” Se e C o u n t y of El Paso , 180 S.W .3d at 868 (“An inm ate ’s disagreem ent w ith the kind of med ical treatm entthathe ha s receiv ed is insuf f icient as a
ma tter of law t o s t a t e an Eighth Am end me nt vi olatio n.”). Ev iden ce of inadvertentfailure to provide me dical care or ne gli gent diagno sis are insuf f icient to e s t a b li sh “unn ecessa ry and wanton infli cti on of pai n” i n v iol ati on of the Ei g hth A mendment. W il son v. Seiter

, 501 U. S. 2 94, 2 97 ( 1991)( hol din g that “i nadv ertent failu re to prov ide adeq uate medic al care” fails to est abl is h the req uis it e c ulp abl e s tate of mind.) ; Este lle , 429 U .S. at 10 5- 06; see Doe
v. Tay lor Indep. S ch. D is t. , 15 F. 3d 443, 450 (5t h Cir . 1994) (n oti ng thatse cti on 1983 does not i mpose li abi li ty

for v iol ati ons of the duty of care ari sing under

tor t l aw ); Varan do v. Lynaugh , 920 F .2d 3 20, 3 21 ( 5th C ir . 199 3) ( hol din g thatuns ucc ess ful medi cal treatment, “mere neg li g ence, neglec t[ ,] or medi cal mal pract ic e” do n ot g iv e r is e to a s ect ion 1983
caus e of act ion ); see also Coun ty of El Paso , 180 S.W .3d a t 865 , 868 ( sta ti ng thatal leg ed “med ical malp ractice do es no t beco me a constitu tiona l v iolation me rely beca use th e v ictim is a pr is oner” and “ [e]v ide nce of si ck ca ll req uest s, ex aminat ion s, dia g noses [,] and medic ati o ns mayrebut an i nmate’ s c lai m of deli berate i ndi fference” ). C ole has not est abl is hed t hat L atham was del ibe ra tel y i ndi fferent t o hi s medi cal co ndi ti ons.C ol e “ conceed s [ si c] t hat he di d no t ra i se t he i ssue o fR et al i at i on i n hi s or i gi nal pet i t i on, buthe i nsi st 5 [ si c] t hat r et al i at i on was t he ‘ M OT I V A TI N G F A C TO R ’ fo r h i s re a s s i g n m e n t t o a fi e l d fo rc e h o e s q u a d .”
8 T he reco rd doe s notconta in evi den ce esta blishing thateithe r Fr izz ell or W akef ield
w ere aware of

facts f rom w hich an inferen ce could have been draw n tha t a subst ant ial risk of ser iou s h ar m ex is ted a nd th at t hey actual ly drew su ch an i nferenc e. See County of E l Paso , 180 S.W .3d at 863 (“T he inm ate mustalso prove that th e jail of f icial was subjectively
aw are of facts from w hic h an inference coul d be d ra w n tha t a subs tanti al ri sk of ser iou s harm ex isted a nd th en a ctua lly drew such an inferen ce.”). W ith respe ct to F rizz ell, Cole
ass erts that “[ i] n order to sat is fy the ‘ STA TE OF MIND INTENT ’ of deli berate i ndi fference, Pl ain ti ff al led g ed [s ic] t hat h is j ob reass ig nment was done i n ‘ R E TA L I A T ION ’ d u e to his compl ain t of raci al dis cr imi nati on.” H ow ev er , t his co ntent ion was not rais ed i n the tr ial 5
cour t and therefore w as not pres er v ed for appeal. SeeT EX
. R. A PP
. P. 33.1. C ole di d not prov ide addi ti onal ev ide nce t o establ is h ei ther F ri z z ell ’s st ate o f mind or hi s a ctu al know led g e of

C ole ’s medi cal co ndi ti ons. See McClen don , 305 F. 3d at326 n.8 ( “The sta te acto r’s actual k n o wle dge is cr itical to the inquiry . A state a ctor’s failure to a llev iate ‘a si g n if ic ant r is k t hat h e s houl d hav e percei v ed butdi d not ,’ w hil e ‘ no c ause for
co m m e n d a ti o n ,’ do e s n o t ris e t o t h e l e vel o f d e lib e ra te i n d if

fe re n ce .” ) (qu o ti n g Far

m er , 511 U. S. at 83 7) ; see a lso Coun ty of El Paso , 180 S.W .3d at 866 (“Act ion s a nd dec is ion s b y off ic ial s t hat a re merely i nept, er roneous, i neffect iv e, or neg li g ent d o notamount to del ibe ra te i ndi fference
. . . .” ). Col e al leg es that W akefiel d i s l iab le for del ibe ra te i ndi fference merel y bec ause he is the super

v is or of the E ast ham faci lity

. Howev er , i n anal yz ing the leg is lat iv e hi sto ry of
secti on 1983 of

the Uni ted S tates C ode, the U nit ed St ates Supreme C our t has co ncl uded9

that Con g re ss di d not int end for super v is or y off ic ial s to be l iab le for th e acts or omi ss ion s of s ubordin ates on any

theo ry of v ic ar iou s l iab il ity . See Monel l v. Dep ’ t of Social Ser vs . of N. Y. , 436 U .S. 658, 692 ( 1978) ; see a lso McQuee n v. Bee cher Cm ty. Schs. , 433 F .3d 4 60, 470 (5th Cir. 2006 ) ( not ing that a pla intif f mustsho w t h at a sup erv isor at least “imp licitly author iz ed, a pproved , o r know ing ly ac q uie sc ed i n the unc onst it uti onal co nduct ” of the all eg ed offending par

ti es to es tabl is h l iab il ity under se cti on 1983 ; “ si mple aw areness of employees’ mis condu ct” or li abi li ty “b ased sol ely on the ri g ht to cont ro l employees” is not enoug h)

. Col e has not tendered ev ide nce ind ic ati ng thatW akefiel d “ impl ic it ly auth or iz ed, approv ed, o r know ing ly ac q uie sc ed i n the unc onst it uti onal co n d u ct ” o f t h e a l l e g e d offendi ng par ti es. See Gete r v. Fortenbe rry, 8 4 9 F

. 2 d 1 5 5 0 , 1 5 5 3 ( 5 t h C i r
. 1 9 8 8 ) ( hol din g that a
secti on 1983 cl aim canno t be est abl is hed merely by co ncl usor

y al leg ati ons)

. Fur ther more, C ole c laims that both Fr izz ell and W akefiel d v iol ated TDC J p oli ci es for hand li ng i nmates w it h s er iou s medi cal co ndi ti ons and t hat s uch v iol ati ons amount t o a const itution al v iolation . S pecif ically , Cole alleges tha t Frizz ell and W akef ield ignored his dia g nosed medi cal co ndi ti ons and forc ed hi m to w o rk in the fie lds on t he “ hoe s q uad,”
w hic h amount ed to a v iol ati on of TDC J p oli ci es. A v iol ati on of TDC J p oli cy nei ther g iv es ri se to a cons ti tuti onal vi ola ti on nor enti tl es a pri soner to secti on 1983 reli ef. Her nandez v. Estelle , 788 F.2d 11 54, 115 8 (5th Cir. 198 6). T here fore, base d on the foregoing, Cole’s del ibe ra te i ndi fference ass erti ons as to F ri z z ell and W akefiel d mustal so fail. Base d on our

rev ie w o f the record, i t i s c lea r to t his C our t t hat C ole has fail ed to esta blish tha t app ellees were deliberat ely indif feren t to his me dical con dition s. Becau se Cole ha s not pro duce d sum ma ry j u d gm e n te v iden ce raising an issue of mat erial fact10

per tai nin g to his i ndi fference cl aims , t he tr ial co urt di d noter r in g ra nti ng appel lee ’s moti ons for s ummary

j udg ment on tradi ti onal g ro unds. See T EX
. R. C IV
. P

. 1 6 6 a (c ). Ac c o rd in gl y,
w e overrule Cole’s first an d third issue s on ap pea l. W e ne ed not address C ole’s secon d issue be cause w e ha v e con clude d tha t Cole has n ot raised a n issue of mat erial fact est ablishin g tha t app ellees were deliberat ely ind ifferent to hi s medi cal needs

. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 47.1. IV. C ONCL US I ON W e aff ir m the jud g ment of the tr ial co urt.

_________ _________

_____ DO RI C ON TRERAS G ARZA, J u s t i c e Do not p ubl is h. T EX .R .A PP .P. 47.2( b) Me moran dum Opi nio n del iv ered and filed thi s t he 14t h day

of Aug ust , 200 8.