IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-30936
Summary Calendar
CHARLES CARTER,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
JOHN P. WHITLEY, Warden,
Defendant-Appellee.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Louisiana
USDC No. 94-CV-2572 B M1
- - - - - - - - - -
November 25, 1997
Before DUHÉ, DEMOSS, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:1
Charles Carter, Louisiana state prisoner #115957, appeals the
district court’s grant of summary judgment for the defendant on his
civil rights claims. Carter argues that the district court erred
in granting summary judgment for Whitley on his claims of
deliberate indifference to serious medical needs, cruel and unusual
punishment, and punishment before he was convicted of a crime. He
also contends that the district court erred in denying his second
motion to compel discovery. Carter’s motions for appointment of
1
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
counsel, to supplement the record, and to file a supplemental brief
are DENIED.
This court reviews a grant of summary judgment de novo.
Topalian v. Ehrman, 954 F.2d 1125, 1131 (5th Cir.), cert. denied,
506 U.S. 825 (1992). Summary judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)
is proper "`if the pleadings, depositions, answers to
interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the
affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any
material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment
as a matter of law.’" Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322
(1986).
The district court did not err in granting summary judgment
for Whitley on Carter’s claim of deliberate indifference to serious
medical needs because Carter’s allegations are of mere negligence
and do not give rise to a § 1983 cause of action. Varnado v.
Lynaugh, 920 F.2d 320, 321 (5th Cir. 1991). The court did not err
in granting summary judgment for Whitley on Carter’s claim of cruel
and unusual punishment because the summary judgment evidence did not demonstrate
a genuine issue of material fact whether Whitley knew that Carter’s work assignment would
significantly aggravate Carter's serious medical condition. See Jackson v. Cain, 864 F.2d 1235, 1246
(5th Cir. 1989).
The district court also did not err in granting summary judgment, albeit implicitly, on
Carter’s claim that he was subjected to work before an adjudication
of guilt in violation of his constitutional rights. By Carter’s
own assertions, his parole had been revoked prior to his transfer
to Angola on August 23, 1993. Because the record provided no
support for Carter’s assertion that he was subjected to labor as a
pretrial detainee, the district court did not err in implicitly
granting the defendant’s summary judgment motion on this claim.
Carter has not demonstrated that the magistrate judge abused
his discretion in denying his second motion to compel. See
Richardson v. Henry, 902 F.2d 414, 417 (5th Cir. 1990).
AFFIRMED.