IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-50822
Summary Calendar
GEORGE E. BIRDWELL,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
M. B. THALER, Warden,
Defendant-Appellee.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. SA-95-CA-673
- - - - - - - - - -
August 29, 1997
Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
George E. Birdwell, a Texas prisoner (# 420325), appeals the
magistrate judge’s grant of summary judgment for defendant Thaler
in his pro se civil rights action. Birdwell argues that the
magistrate judge abused his discretion in failing to appoint him
an attorney to file a response to Thaler’s summary-judgment
motion. The magistrate judge did not abuse his discretion
because Birdwell did not show that “exceptional circumstances”
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
No. 96-50822
-2-
existed to warrant the appointment of counsel. See Ulmer v.
Chancellor, 691 F.2d 209, 212-13 (5th Cir. 1982).
Birdwell vaguely contends that genuine issues of material
fact existed as to his claim that Warden Thaler ordered
corrections officials to remove him from a private hospital and
returned him to the prison without obtaining his medical records.
Birdwell has failed to demonstrate that such action constituted
deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. See
Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 105-06 (1976). He has abandoned
his remaining substantive claims by failing to brief them on
appeal. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir.
1993); Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(4).
Birdwell’s motion for “default judgment” or to otherwise
penalize appellee’s counsel for failing to file a timely brief is
DENIED.
AFFIRMED.