Court Opinion

ID: 9951155
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-15 18:01:22.068294+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:35:36.732797
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-20331          Document: 89-1         Page: 1      Date Filed: 03/15/2024

         United States Court of Appeals
              for the Fifth Circuit
                                _____________
                                                                           United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                    Fifth Circuit
                                 No. 23-20331
                             consolidated with                                    FILED
                                 No. 23-20339                               March 15, 2024
                               _____________                                 Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                  Clerk
Donald Lloyd Davis, Jr.,

                                                                Plaintiff—Appellant,

                                        versus

Glen L. Wise; James D. Geddes; Paul K. Reilley; Co
Nguyen; Dr. Edgar Halupis; Gregorio P. Paningbatan;
Sharla Madl; April M. Persinger; Karen T. Faust;
Marilyn Paningbatan; Sally Matthew; Philip L. Farley;
Israeldivine Kuyinu; Rona L. Baquero; Gabriel E.
Calles; Robert H. Fridman; Monica Powell; Deborah
Stedman,

                                          Defendants—Appellees.
                 ______________________________

                Appeals from the United States District Court
                     for the Southern District of Texas
                          USDC No. 4:19-CV-1729
                ______________________________

Before Davis, Willett, and Oldham, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam: *

     _____________________
     *
         This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-20331         Document: 89-1       Page: 2    Date Filed: 03/15/2024

                                   No. 23-20331
                                 c/w No. 23-20339

       Donald Lloyd Davis, Jr., Texas prisoner # 01762796, filed an amended
42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights complaint naming 18 medical providers, setting
forth allegations against each provider. After the parties filed motions for
summary judgment, the district court granted the defendants’ motion,
denied Davis’s motions, and dismissed the action with prejudice. Davis
timely appealed.
       First, Davis argues the medical providers were not entitled to
Eleventh Amendment immunity. Davis’s claims for damages against the
medical providers in their official capacities was a suit against the University
of Texas Medical Branch, an agency of the state of Texas. See Will v.
Michigan Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71 (1989). The district court did
not err in finding that these claims were barred by the Eleventh Amendment.
See Will, 491 U.S. at 71; Cozzo v. Tangipahoa Par. Council-President Gov’t, 279
F.3d 273, 280 (5th Cir. 2002).
       Davis further asserts that the medical providers denied medical care,
delayed care, and were deliberately indifferent to his need for care for his foot
injury. According to Davis, the delay in treatment caused him to suffer a loss
of function in his right foot and big toe. In addition, Davis argues the medical
providers were involved in a cover-up scheme to protect the officer who
stepped on his foot.
       This court reviews de novo the district court’s summary judgment
ruling. Hyatt v. Thomas, 843 F.3d 172, 176 (5th Cir. 2016). Summary
judgment is appropriate where “there is no genuine dispute as to any material
fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.
R. Civ. P. 56(a); see Sanchez v. Oliver, 995 F.3d 461, 466 (5th Cir. 2021).
This court “review[s] evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving
party, but conclusional allegations and unsubstantiated assertions may not be

                                        2
Case: 23-20331       Document: 89-1        Page: 3   Date Filed: 03/15/2024

                                 No. 23-20331
                               c/w No. 23-20339

relied on as evidence by the nonmoving party.” Carnaby v. City of Houston,
636 F.3d 183, 187 (5th Cir. 2011).
       Davis’s medical records establish that he received consistent medical
treatment from the date of his foot injury and through the time the fracture
was completely healed. Given that Davis received continuous medical
treatment for his injured foot, the district court did not err in finding the
medical providers were not deliberately indifferent to his serious medical
needs. See Sanchez, 995 F.3d at 473. Further, Davis’s disagreement with the
medical treatment he received did not establish that the medical providers
acted with deliberate indifference. See Gobert v. Caldwell, 463 F.3d 339, 346
(5th Cir. 2006). Because Davis did not show the medical providers were
deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs, he did not defeat their
entitlement to qualified immunity. See Morgan v. Swanson, 659 F.3d 359, 371
(5th Cir. 2011) (en banc).
       The record supports the district court’s finding that any delays in
medical treatment were caused in part by the need to transfer Davis for crisis
management numerous times. Davis did not present any evidence showing
the providers deliberately delayed his access to medical care or that he
suffered substantial harm due to the alleged delay in medical care. Although
Davis suffered some loss of bone density, the medical records reflect this was
caused by disuse and lack of weight bearing, and not the alleged delay in
medical treatment. Therefore, the district court did not err in finding that
any delay in medical treatment did not cause Davis to suffer substantial harm.
See Delaughter v. Woodall, 909 F.3d 130, 136 (5th Cir. 2018); see also Hyatt,
843 F.3d at 176.
       Although Davis repeats his allegation that the medical providers
conspired to cover up the officer’s actions to prevent a civil rights claim, he
did not allege specific facts of an agreement by the providers to deny proper

                                       3
Case: 23-20331       Document: 89-1       Page: 4    Date Filed: 03/15/2024

                                 No. 23-20331
                               c/w No. 23-20339

medical care or present any evidence in the district court to support his
allegations. The district court did not err in concluding Davis’s speculative
and conclusory allegations did not support a claim for conspiracy. See
Carnaby, 636 F.3d at 187.
       For the first time on appeal, Davis asserts that the delay in treatment
caused his bone to heal incorrectly and that in March 2023, a medical
provider advised him that he will need surgery to correct the problem. He
also contends that from May to August 2023, the medical providers have
refused to provide treatment or send him to see an orthopedic doctor in
retaliation for his filing this action. We will not consider new claims or new
evidence presented for the first time on appeal. See Burge v. St. Tammany
Parish, 336 F.3d 363, 372 (5th Cir. 2003); Leverette v. Louisville Ladder Co.,
183 F.3d 339, 342 (5th Cir. 1999).
       The district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED. Davis’s motions for
appointment of counsel, summary judgment, and permission to view sealed
documents are DENIED.

                                      4