Court Opinion

ID: 9928848
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-01 01:00:46.776676+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:55:40.243007
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-40224        Document: 00517051487             Page: 1      Date Filed: 01/31/2024

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

                                     ____________                                     FILED
                                                                               January 31, 2024
                                      No. 23-40224                               Lyle W. Cayce
                                    Summary Calendar                                  Clerk
                                    ____________

   Jimmie Mark Parrott, Jr.,

                                                                    Plaintiff—Appellant,

                                            versus

   UTMB Correctional Managed Health Care; Joni White;
   Vivian Davis; Yvette Hall; Tamina Brazil; Emma Davis;
   Edward Delone; Kevin Smith,

                                              Defendants—Appellees.
                     ______________________________

                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                          for the Eastern District of Texas
                               USDC No. 1:19-CV-475
                     ______________________________

   Before Elrod, Oldham, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
         Jimmie Marl Parrott, Jr., Texas prisoner # 1621310, filed suit against
   the University of Texas Medical Branch (UTMB) Correctional Managed
   Health Care, two individuals employed by UTMB, and five individuals
   employed by the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. Parrott alleged that

         _____________________
         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-40224      Document: 00517051487          Page: 2    Date Filed: 01/31/2024

                                    No. 23-40224

   the defendants had been deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs
   while he was housed in the Stiles Unit.
          The district court dismissed UTMB Correctional Managed Health
   Care from the suit and dismissed the claims against the individual defendants
   in their official capacities and against Kevin Smith in his individual capacity.
   Parrott does not challenge these dismissals.        Emma Davis moved for
   summary judgment arguing that Parrott had failed to exhaust his
   administrative remedies, that he failed to show a violation of his
   constitutional rights, and that she was entitled to qualified immunity. The
   other defendants also moved for summary judgment arguing that they were
   entitled to qualified immunity because Parrott failed to show a violation of his
   constitutional rights. The district court found that there was no genuine
   issue of material fact regarding Parrott’s failure to exhaust his administrative
   remedies for his claim against Emma Davis, or whether the other defendants
   had been indifferent to Parrott’s serious medical needs. The district court
   entered final judgment dismissing the complaint with prejudice. Parrott
   appeals the dismissal.
          As a preliminary matter, the district court did not abuse its discretion
   in granting Emma Davis an extension of time in which to file her motion for
   summary judgment. See Adams v. Travelers Indem. Co. of Conn., 465 F.3d 156,
   161-62 (5th Cir. 2006). With respect to the substance of Parrott’s complaint,
   “[we] review[] a summary judgment de novo, using the same standard as that
   employed by the district court.” McFaul v. Valenzuela, 684 F.3d 564, 571 (5th
   Cir. 2012). Parrott has failed to show that there is a genuine issue of material
   fact that he exhausted all his claims against Emma Davis. See Woodford v.
   Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 85 (2006); Gonzalez v. Seal, 702 F.3d 785, 788 (5th Cir.
   2012). Additionally, he has failed to show a genuine issue of material fact that
   the defendants had been deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs
   by the unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain. See Easter v. Powell,

                                          2
Case: 23-40224     Document: 00517051487          Page: 3   Date Filed: 01/31/2024

                                   No. 23-40224

   467 F.3d 459, 463 (5th Cir. 2006). As found by the district court, the record
   shows that Parrott’s medical condition was monitored and that his medical
   restrictions were increased as necessary. Parrott’s suggestions of negligence
   or medical malpractice and his disagreement with his medical care do not
   constitute deliberate indifference. See Gobert v. Caldwell, 463 F.3d 339, 346
   (5th Cir. 2006). Parrott has abandoned all other issues. See Brinkmann v.
   Dallas Cnty. Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987).
          Parrott has moved for appointment of counsel, but this appeal does
   not present any exceptional circumstances. See Ulmer v. Chancellor, 691 F.2d
   209, 212-13 (5th Cir. 1982). Accordingly, the motion for appointment of
   counsel is DENIED, and the judgment of the district court is
   AFFIRMED.

                                         3