UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
____________________
No. 97-10989
Summary Calendar
____________________
BRUCE ALBERT KIRK,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
PHIL RYAN, in his official capacity as
Sheriff of Wise County,
Defendant-Appellee.
_________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
(USDC No. 4:96-CV-878-Y)
_________________________________________________________________
February 26, 1998
Before WIENER, BARKSDALE, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Bruce Albert Kirk, Texas prisoner #478497, appeals the
district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. Kirk
contends that the district court abused its discretion in
dismissing his action as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2) and in dismissing his claim for injunctive relief as
moot.
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
Kirk claims that, after his April 1996 arrest, officers in the
Wise County Detention Center disregarded his medical condition,
failed to provide Miranda warnings or counsel during questioning,
and placed him in a holding cell without a mattress or bunk. Kirk
also claims that, after his July 1996 arrest, officers in the Wise
County Detention Center delayed medical treatment of his injured
foot, exposed him to unsanitary conditions, failed to provide over-
the-counter medication, failed to provide mail service on
Saturdays, and failed to provide indigent supplies.
Kirk names only Sheriff Phil Ryan as a defendant. But, Kirk
did not allege that Sheriff Ryan directly caused or contributed to
the officers’ alleged actions. Accordingly, the district court did
not abuse its discretion in dismissing these claims against Sheriff
Ryan as frivolous. See Thompkins v. Belt, 828 F.2d 298, 304 (5th
Cir. 1987) (“[A] supervisor may be held liable if there exists
either (1) his personal involvement in the constitutional
deprivation, or (2) a sufficient causal connection between the
supervisor’s wrongful conduct and the constitutional violation.”).
Along this line, the district court ordered Kirk to provide a
more definite statement, specifically requesting facts concerning
Sheriff Ryan’s actions, policies, or failure to supervise that
resulted in any of the alleged violations of Kirk’s rights. After
consideration of Kirk’s more definite statement, the district court
dismissed the complaint with prejudice. On appeal, Kirk does not
2
contend that the district court’s dismissal should have been
without prejudice, or that he would amend his complaint if given
the opportunity. Rodriguez v. United States, 66 F.3d 95, 98 (5th
Cir. 1995) (“When a plaintiff is given an opportunity to amend a
complaint that fails to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted, but refuses to do so, then the district court is justified
in dismissing the complaint with prejudice.”), cert. denied, 116 S.
Ct. 1058 (1996).
Accordingly, the judgment of the district court dismissing
Kirk’s complaint with prejudice is AFFIRMED.
3