IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-11166
Summary Calendar
RALPH WAYNE FOWLER,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
ANDREW P. DAVIS, Captain; ET AL.,
Defendants,
BRACKSON F. MILLS; D.J. RICHARDSON, Nurse,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 2:96-CV-261
--------------------
June 26, 2000
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DeMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Ralph Wayne Fowler (TDCJ # 456273) appeals the dismissal of
his pro se 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint wherein he complained of a
1995 altercation with disciplinary officers and of the subsequent
revocation of medical passes which allowed him to have a cane and
allowed him to use the infirmary shower. Fowler sued several
disciplinary officers and a male nurse who were involved in the
altercation. He also sued two prison doctors.
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 99-11166
-2-
The district court dismissed Fowler’s claims against
Fairfield, Nash, Davis, Revell, and Ratnarajah pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915A. We review such dismissal de novo and examine
whether such claims were frivolous, malicious, or failed to state
a claim. See Ruiz v. United States, 160 F.3d 273, 274-75 (5th
Cir. 1998). The court dismissed the claims against Richardson
and Mills pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). Again applying a de
novo standard of review, we examine whether the pleadings and
summary-judgment evidence presented no genuine issue of material
fact. See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986).
Fowler argues that the district court erred by rejecting his
claims that the disciplinary officers unjustifiably disciplined
him for exercising his right to free speech and used excessive
force against him. He also argues that the court erred by
rejecting his claim that the doctors were deliberately
indifferent to his medical needs by failing to restore the
medical passes. Finally, he argues that the court erred when it
concluded that Richardson, the nurse, was not responsible for the
revocation of the passes. We find no error in the court’s
holdings. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED.