IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-31324
Summary Calendar
JOSE GUILLOT,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
EDGAR C. DAY, JR., Warden, Washington Correctional Institute;
MAG SEALS, Supervisor, Washington Correctional Institute;
CAPTAIN SLADE, Supervisor, Washington Correctional Institute;
DR. RAMIREZ, Director of Medical for DPSC, Washington
Correctional Institute;
KATHLEEN McGINNIS, Director of Nursing for DPSC, Washington
Correctional Institute;
LIEUTENANT DIXON, Shift Lieutenant for (b) team for DPSC,
Washington Correctional Institute;
UNIDENTIFIED PARTY;
JUDITH PHELPS, Incorrectly named as Judity Phillips,
Defendant-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana
(95-CV-1818-T)
May 28, 1998
Before JOHNSON, DeMOSS, and JONES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Jose Guillot, Louisiana inmate # 290502, appeals the district
court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims. Guillot
contends that prison officials acted with deliberate indifference
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
to his medical needs in violation of his Eighth Amendment right to
be free from cruel and unusual punishment.
The district court referred this action to a magistrate judge.
The magistrate judge prepared a report and recommendation,
concluding that Guillot’s complaint should be dismissed with
prejudice. Guillot failed to specifically object to the report and
recommendation. We review for plain error only. See Douglass v.
United Services Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1428-29 (5th Cir. 1996).
As a preliminary matter, we note that issues must be briefed
to be preserved for appeal. Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25
(5th Cir. 1993). Therefore, Guillot has abandoned any challenge to
the district court’s dismissal of his complaint as frivolous as to
all defendants other than Dr. Ramirez and Lt. Dixon.
Guillot has failed to demonstrate that the district court
plainly erred in dismissing his remaining § 1983 claims. A prison
inmate may only obtain relief under § 1983 on grounds of denial of
medical care by proving that prison officials were deliberately
indifferent to his or her serious medical needs. Estelle v.
Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976). Deliberate indifference
“encompasses only unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain
repugnant to the conscience of mankind.” McCormick v. Stalder, 105
F.3d 1059, 1061 (5th Cir. 1997). Guillot contends that Dr. Ramirez
acted with deliberate indifference in changing his work duty status
despite knowing that he complained of a heart condition. However,
Guillot has not shown that the actual condition of his heart
2
presented a serious medical condition of which prison officials
were, or even could be, aware. Furthermore, Guillot has not shown
that the decision to change his duty status constituted deliberate
indifference. Therefore, the district court did not err in
dismissing his remaining § 1983 claims.
AFFIRMED.
3