Court Opinion

ID: 14566
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2010-04-25 06:36:50+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:32:29.208457
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                         For the Fifth Circuit

                             No. 97-30536
                           Summary Calendar

               PAUL O. IWENJIORA; CHRISTOPHER ERUCHALU;
                          GARRY LEE ROBERSON,

                                              Plaintiffs-Appellants,

                                VERSUS

                      ELMER LITCHFIELD, ET AL.,

                                                           Defendants,

   ELMER LITCHFIELD, Sheriff, of East of Baton Rouge Parish,
     JOE SABELLA, Warden, of East Baton Rouge Parish Prison;
             ANN LEMOINE, Prison Health Care Manager,

                                                  Defendants-Appellees.

          Appeal from the United States District Court
              For the Middle District of Louisiana
                             (93-CV-278)
                            April 15, 1998

Before WISDOM, DUHÉ, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

     Paul Iwenjiora, Christopher Eruchalu, and Garry Roberson, all

former inmates at the East Baton Rouge Parish Prison, filed a suit

     *
      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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Sheriff Elmer Litchfield, Warden

Joseph Sabella, and several other corrections officials in which

they       alleged    various      violations    of     their     Eighth    Amendment

protections against cruel and unusual punishment.2                      Specifically,

they alleged that they contracted tuberculosis from a fellow inmate

because       the    prison’s      screening     and    control     procedures    for

infectious          disease     were    constitutionally         inadequate.      The

plaintiffs further alleged that after they tested positive for

tuberculosis, the defendants demonstrated deliberate indifference

to   their     medical         needs   by   failing     to   dispense      appropriate

medications         and   by     ignoring    their     medical    complaints.      On

recommendation by the magistrate judge, the district court granted

summary judgment for the defendants and entered a final judgment in

their favor.          The plaintiffs timely filed notice of appeal.                We

affirm.

       2
       Litchfield and Sabella are the only defendants named in the
present appeal.

                                             2
     We review a grant of summary judgment de novo.3                   Summary

judgment is proper only if the evidence shows that there is no

genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is

entitled to judgment as a matter of law.4                      A thorough and

independent review of the record convinces us that Litchfield and

Sabella are entitled to summary judgment.

     To have survived a motion for summary judgment, the plaintiffs

were required to proffer evidence that raised a genuine issue of

material fact as to whether the defendants were deliberately

indifferent to their serious medical needs.5            Much of the evidence

adduced    by    the   plaintiffs   in    opposition   to   Litchfield’s   and

Sabella’s       motion,   though,   was      unauthenticated    and   therefore

inadmissible.6      We have stated that “unauthenticated documents are

     3
         Fraire v. City of Arlington, 957 F.2d 1268, 1273 (5th Cir.
1992).
     4
         Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c).
     5
         See Varnado v. Lynaugh, 920 F.2d 320, 321 (5th Cir. 1991).
     6
       Among the exhibits attached to the plaintiffs’ memorandum
were   confidential  prison   investigation  reports  concerning
irregularities in the dispensation of medications to prisoners.

                                         3
improper as summary judgment evidence.”7        Accordingly, we are

permitted to consider only competent evidence in reviewing the

propriety of the district court’s entry of summary judgment on the

defendants’ behalf.      Considering only competent evidence, it is

clear to us that the plaintiffs have not met their burden of

raising a genuine issue of material fact.8      In simple terms, the

evidence does not demonstrate that either of the defendants knew of

and disregarded an excessive health risk to the plaintiffs.9        Any

other claims are considered abandoned by virtue of the plaintiffs’

failure adequately to brief and argue them on appeal.10      Litchfield

and Sabella were entitled to summary judgment.

None, however, were accompanied by authenticating certifications
from the custodian of records.
     7
          King v. Dogan, 31 F.3d 344, 346 (5th Cir. 1994).
     8
       Even if we were able to consider all of the plaintiffs’
evidence, it is doubtful that they could have survived summary
judgment.
     9
       See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994). See also
Varnado at 321 (mere negligence, neglect, or medical malpractice do
not give rise to a § 1983 cause of action).
     10
          See Brinkmann v. Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987).

                                   4
AFFIRMED.

            5