IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-60338
Summary Calendar
ROOSEVELT FORD,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
ISAAC LEE; ANDREW THOMPSON;
CHARLES JONES; FLOYD WILLIAMS,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
For the Northern District of Mississippi
(2:94-CV-52)
February 11, 1998
Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Roosevelt Ford, a Mississippi prisoner (# 42452), appeals from
the judgment for the defendants following a bench trial in his
civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He argues
that the evidence showed that the defendants acted with deliberate
indifference in confiscating his shoes (allegedly causing him to
contract a fungal condition on his feet and legs) and that they
denied him access to the courts.
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
We agree with the district court and the magistrate that Ford
failed to establish his § 1983 claims. Although prison officials
must provide prisoners with medical care and clothing, see Farmer
v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (1994), to hold prison officials liable
for episodic acts, Ford must demonstrate that they acted with
deliberate indifference, see id. at 847. Ford has not shown that
prison officials knew of a substantial risk of serious harm from
the conditions of the jail floor. Moreover, Ford’s claim must fail
because he did not prove that the prison officials’ alleged failure
to provide him shoes caused the bacterial condition on his leg and
foot. See Hart v. O’Brien, 127 F.3d 424, 446 (5th Cir. 1997). As
to Ford’s access-to-the-courts claim, the magistrate was entitled
to credit the prison officials’ testimony that they routinely
provide access to a law library and would have provided Ford a
stamp to mail his legal filing if he had requested on; similarly,
the magistrate was entitled to discredit Ford’s testimony that the
defendants failed to comply with these policies. See Gibbs v.
King, 779 F.2d 1040, 1046 (5th Cir. 1986).
Ford also contends that the magistrate judge erred in denying
his motion for a continuance, because responses to Ford’s discovery
requests came just a few days before trial. Yet as the lower court
found, Ford failed to demonstrate that the denied continuance
prejudiced his case in any way. Moreover, Ford has not met the
heavy burden for imposing sanctions on the defendants for their
failure to comply with discovery requests. We find no abuse of
2
discretion on these facts. See Dorsey v. Scott Wetzel Serv., Inc.,
84 F.3d 170, 171 (5th Cir. 1996).
AFFIRMED.
3