Case Name: Darnell R. SMITH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Dr. Allan PINCHBACK, et al., Defendants, Dr. Allan Pinchback, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-06-13
Citations: 242 F. App'x 132
Docket Number: No. 05-41289
Parties: Darnell R. SMITH, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Dr. Allan PINCHBACK, et al., Defendants, Dr. Allan Pinchback, Defendant—Appellee.
Judges: Before JOLLY, DENNIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 242
Pages: 132–133

Head Matter:
Darnell R. SMITH, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Dr. Allan PINCHBACK, et al., Defendants, Dr. Allan Pinchback, Defendant—Appellee.
No. 05-41289
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
June 13, 2007.
Darnell R. Smith, Beeville, TX, pro se.
Gerard Raphael Rawls, Beaumont, TX, for Defendant-Appellee.
Before JOLLY, DENNIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Darnell R. Smith, Texas prisoner #666016, filed the instant 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit to seek redress for the defendants' alleged deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. Smith appeals the trial court's dismissal of his suit. Smith contends that the court erred by dismissing defendant Kennedy from the suit because she denied his grievance and because she should have known of the dental defendants' refusal to treat him but did nothing to help him. Neither of these assertions establishes a viable claim against this defendant. See Geiger v. Jowers, 404 F.3d 371, 374 (5th Cir.2005); Stewart v. Murphy, 174 F.3d 530, 536 (5th Cir.1999). Smith has thus failed to show that the district court acted erroneously by dismissing this claim.
Smith further argues that the trial court erred by dismissing his claims against the remaining defendants. He maintains that he did not receive proper dental care and that he endured severe pain because the defendants did not promptly treat his serious dental problems. The record evidence supports the court's conclusions that Smith received extensive dental care and that the defendants did not exhibit deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837, 114 S.Ct. 1970, 128 L.Ed.2d 811 (1994). The judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.