Case Name: William Henry BROWN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Joe SIMMONS, Maintenance Supervisor IV; Warden Gary Johnson; Brenda Channey, Warden; Office of the Attorney General, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-01-16
Citations: 261 F. App'x 797
Docket Number: No. 07-40264
Parties: William Henry BROWN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Joe SIMMONS, Maintenance Supervisor IV; Warden Gary Johnson; Brenda Channey, Warden; Office of the Attorney General, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before REAVLEY, SMITH, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 261
Pages: 797–798

Head Matter:
William Henry BROWN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Joe SIMMONS, Maintenance Supervisor IV; Warden Gary Johnson; Brenda Channey, Warden; Office of the Attorney General, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 07-40264
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Jan. 16, 2008.
William Henry Brown, Cuero, TX, pro se.
George Baxter Ward, IV, Office of the Attorney General, Law Enforcement Defense Div., Austin, TX, for DefendantsAppellees.
Before REAVLEY, SMITH, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
William Brown, Texas prisoner # 1188215, filed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit for alleged acts of deliberate indifference to his safety and medical needs. He appeals a summary judgment for Joe Simmons and the dismissal of the suit. Brown argues that the district court erred by determining that his claims concerning deliberate indifference to his needs for a safe working environment and medical treatment lack merit. He also moves for appointment of counsel.
Our review of the record reveals no error in connection with the summary judgment. See Threadgill v. Prudential Sec. Group, Inc., 145 F.3d 286, 292 (5th Cir.1998); Fed.R.Ctv.P. 56(c). The record does not show that Simmons was deliberately indifferent to Brown's need for safe working conditions. See Cantu v. Jones, 293 F.3d 839, 844 (5th Cir.2002). That is, Brown did not establish that Simmons was aware that his actions could pose an excessive risk to Brown's safety. See id. Brown likewise did not establish that Simmons acted with "the subjective intent to cause [Brown] harm." See Hare v. City of Corinth, 74 F.3d 633, 649 (5th Cir.1996) (en banc) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Brown thus failed to carry his burden of setting forth specific facts showing the existence of a genuine issue for trial in relation to his claim concerning safe working conditions. See rule 56(e).
Brown has likewise failed to carry his burden with respect to the claim that Simmons acted with deliberate indifference to Brown's need for medical treatment. Brown established only that he experienced a short delay in obtaining treatment for his burns. He did not show that he suffered any substantial harm as a result of the delay or that Simmons acted with deliberate indifference when procuring treatment for him. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837, 114 S.Ct. 1970, 128 L.Ed.2d 811 (1994); Mendoza v. Lynaugh, 989 F.2d 191, 195 (5th Cir.1993). As with his claim concerning safe working conditions, Brown has failed to establish specific facts showing the existence of a genuine issue for trial. See rule 56(e).
Brown has shown no error in connection with the judgment, which is AFFIRMED. All outstanding motions are DENIED.
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.