Case Name: Paige L. BENNER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Dee ANDERSON, Sheriff, Tarrant County; Nfn Alvarado, Supervisor, Mid States Food Service, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-01-04
Citations: 118 F. App'x 867
Docket Number: No. 04-10644
Parties: Paige L. BENNER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Dee ANDERSON, Sheriff, Tarrant County; Nfn Alvarado, Supervisor, Mid States Food Service, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before GARWOOD, STEWART and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 118
Pages: 867–867

Head Matter:
Paige L. BENNER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Dee ANDERSON, Sheriff, Tarrant County; Nfn Alvarado, Supervisor, Mid States Food Service, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 04-10644.
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Decided Jan. 4, 2005.
Paige L Benner, Fort Worth, TX, pro se.
Before GARWOOD, STEWART and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Paige L. Benner, Texas prisoner # 0220654, appeals the district court's dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). He asserted in the district court that despite being medically ordered to follow a sodium-free diet, he was served items containing sodium. The district court construed this claim as a challenge to Benner's conditions of confinement; however, if the allegations are liberally construed, they conclusorily assert deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs.
Nevertheless, Benner's factual allegations do not reflect that the defendants showed such deliberate indifference. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 842, 847, 114 S.Ct. 1970, 128 L.Ed.2d 811 (1994); Bickford v. Int'l Speedway Corp., 654 F.2d 1028, 1031 (5th Cir.1981). As the district court correctly observed, the week's menu list attached by Benner to the complaint, with salt items circled by Benner, reflect several other items at each meal not circled nor otherwise alleged to contain salt (nor self-evidently containing it). The judgment of the district court is thus
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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5 the Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.