IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-10371
Summary Calendar
RILEY RIVERA,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
RANDY McLEOD, Warden, Texas Department of
Criminal Justice; DR. REVELL, Clements Unit,
Texas Department of Criminal Justice; CLEMENTS
UNIT MEDICAL STAFF; DENNIS L. SANDERS, Ind.
and in his Official Capacity; REED SMITH, Ind.
and in his Official Capacity; JAMES
RICHARDSON, Ind. and in his Official Capacity;
MR. PHILLIPS, Ind. and in his Official
Capacity; GERALD W. DAVID, Ind. and in his
Official Capacity; MR. BIRDWELL, Ind. and in
his Official Capacity; CAPTAIN LAWSON; MAJOR
LOONEY, Ind. and in his Official Capacity;
MRS. SANDERS, Ind. and in her Official
Capacity; TINA CARMONA, Ind. and in her
Official Capacity; MRS. JACOBS, Ind. and in
her Official Capacity a/k/a Mrs. Jacobson;
DAVIS, Sgt; JANE DOE, Nurse,
Nurse/Receptionist; JANE DOE, Nurse, Rounds
Nurse,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
For the Northern District of Texas
2:92-CV-319
February 21, 1997
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
*
Pursuant to Local 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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 Local Rule 47.5.4.
Riley Rivera brought this suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on the
theory that prison officials violated his Eighth and Fourteenth
Amendment rights through their deliberate indifference to his
medical needs. The parties consented to trial before a United
States Magistrate Judge, who dismissed all defendants. Rivera
appeals only the summary judgments granted in favor of Jacobs,
Revell, Richardson, the two “Jane Doe” defendants, and the Clements
Unit Medical Staff in general. We find no error and affirm.
Rivera has failed to present evidence to support his claim
that any of the defendants had actual knowledge of an excessive
risk to his health and disregarded that risk. See Farmer v.
Brennan, 114 S. Ct. 1970, 1979 (1994); Hare v. City of Corinth, 74
F.3d 633, 647 (5th Cir. 1996). The record reflects that if his
physicians and nurses acted improperly, their lapses were nothing
more than negligence.
The lower court similarly did not err when it denied Rivera’s
motions for appointment of counsel. The decision of whether to
appoint counsel in a civil case is within the discretion of the
trial court. Jackson v. Dallas Police Dept., 811 F.2d 260, 261
(5th Cir. 1986). The court did not abuse its discretion when it
concluded that Rivera was capable of setting forth his own case and
that the case was not sufficiently complex and did not demand the
sort of adversarial skill that comes with a lawyer’s training. See
Ulmer v. Chancellor, 691 F.2d 209, 213 (5th Cir. 1982).
AFFIRMED.
2