IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-20566
Summary Calendar
JAMES WILLARD COLLINS, JR.; DAVID ROY,
Plaintiffs,
JAMES WILLARD COLLINS, JR.,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
JERRY EDWARD LEEVES; GARY JOHNSON;
SAMUEL YOUNG; LISA BRIM; RANDALL LEE HEALY,
Defendants-Appellees.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. H-96-CV-897
- - - - - - - - - -
May 15, 1998
Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
James Willard Collins, Jr., Texas inmate # 631847, appeals
the district court’s dismissal as frivolous, pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i), of his pro se, in forma pauperis
(IFP), civil rights lawsuit, 42 U.S.C. § 1983. We review the
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 97-20566
-2-
dismissal for an abuse of discretion. Siglar v. Hightower, 112
F.3d 191, 193 (5th Cir. 1997).
Collins contends that the defendants denied him a necessary
hernia surgery. Collins’ assertion amounts to a disagreement
with the medical treatment provided, or, at most, negligence,
which is not actionable under § 1983. Varnado v. Lynaugh, 920 F.2d 320, 321
(5th Cir. 1991). Collins has abandoned his claims asserted in the
district court that he was denied adequate medical treatment for
back, ulcer, and eye problems by failing to support his
assertions with factual and legal support. See Al-Ra’id v.
Ingle, 69 F.3d 28, 33 (5th Cir. 1995). Collins has not shown
plain error with respect to his assertions, raised for the first
time, that he is being denied adequate medical treatment for a
neck injury, arthritis, a skin disorder, hemorrhoids, and a
prostate problem. See Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79
F.3d 1415, 1428 (5th Cir. 1996)(en banc).
Collins has not shown that the district court abused its
discretion by dismissing his claim that the defendants subjected
him to cruel and unusual treatment by having him perform work
that was inappropriate to his medical conditions. See Jackson v.
Cain, 864 F.2d 1235, 1246 (5th Cir. 1989).
Collins has not shown plain error with respect to his
claims, raised for the first time, that the defendants have
retaliated against him; have altered, fabricated, and destroyed
No. 97-20566
-3-
medical records; and have prevented him from photocopying
necessary records. Douglass, 79 F.3d at 1428.
Collins’ motions for a restraining order, production of
hearing transcript, production of photocopies, production of
medical credentials, and reassignment to the Walls Unit are
DENIED. Collins’ motion for production of the docket sheet and
to correct the relief requested in his motion for production of
credentials is GRANTED, provided that Collins pays the fee for
the docket sheet.
Collins’ appeal is without arguable merit and thus
frivolous. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983). The
district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing
Collins’ § 1983 complaint as frivolous. Siglar, 112 F.3d at 193.
Because the appeal is frivolous, it is DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR.
R. 42.2.
Collins is cautioned that any additional frivolous appeals
filed by him or on his behalf will invite the imposition of
sanctions. To avoid sanctions, Collins should review any pending
appeals to ensure that they do not raise arguments that are
frivolous.
APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED; MOTION FOR
PRODUCTION OF DOCKET SHEET AND TO CORRECT RELIEF REQUESTED IS
GRANTED; OTHER MOTIONS DENIED.
No. 97-20566
-4-
Collins v. Leeves
Combined Opinion