Court Opinion

ID: 9412910
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-01 22:00:38.151772+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:41:40.424284
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-60544       Document: 00516842299             Page: 1      Date Filed: 08/01/2023

              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit
                                    ____________                              United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                       Fifth Circuit

                                                                                     FILED
                                     No. 22-60544
                                                                                August 1, 2023
                                   Summary Calendar
                                   ____________                                 Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                     Clerk
   Charles Smith, Jr.,

                                                                   Plaintiff—Appellant,

                                           versus

   Lieutenant Unknown Windham; Officer Unknown
   Green,

                                             Defendants—Appellees.
                    ______________________________

                    Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Southern District of Mississippi
                              USDC No. 3:21-CV-613
                    ______________________________

   Before Jones, Haynes, and Oldham, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
          Charles Smith, Jr., Mississippi prisoner # 91945, appeals the dismissal
   of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit for failure to state a claim upon which relief may
   be granted. Smith alleged that defendant Windham violated his Eighth

          _____________________
          *
              Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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   should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Case: 22-60544      Document: 00516842299           Page: 2     Date Filed: 08/01/2023

                                     No. 22-60544

   Amendment rights when she ordered that his food tray be withheld after
   Smith requested that prison officials cover his tray and use facemasks when
   handling his food. He also alleges that Windham’s actions were retaliatory
   in nature.
          Because the district court dismissed Smith’s complaint for failure to
   state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), we review that ruling under
   the same de novo standard that applies to a dismissal under Federal Rule of
   Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). See Black v. Warren, 134 F.3d 732, 733–34 (5th Cir.
   1998). “We accept all well-pleaded facts as true and view those facts in the
   light most favorable to the plaintiff.” Whitley v. Hanna, 726 F.3d 631, 637
   (5th Cir. 2013).     Nonetheless, a complaint will not proceed unless it
   “contain[s] sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to
   relief that is plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)
   (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
          Here, Smith argues that the court erred in dismissing his claims
   because food is one of the basic necessities of life protected by the Eighth
   Amendment. Smith’s allegations that he was denied one meal, however, fail
   to state a claim of cruel and unusual punishment. See Berry v. Brady, 192 F.3d
   504, 508 (5th Cir. 1999). Regarding his retaliation claim, Smith’s argument
   is conclusory, and he does not allege facts supporting his claim. See Jones v.
   Greninger, 188 F.3d 322, 324-25 (5th Cir. 1999).
          For the foregoing reasons, the judgment is AFFIRMED.

                                           2