IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-30903
Summary Calendar
GREGORY JOHNSON
Plaintiff - Appellant
v.
SHANE ZUMBRO, Sergeant; JOSEPH TURNER, Captain;
REGINALD LUCAS, Lieutenant; BILLY ORR, Lieutenant;
K FOIL, Sergeant; M GAUTHIER, Sergeant; KEVIN L
GROOM, Sergeant; FOWLER, Sergeant; LOUIE CALVERT,
Major
Defendants - Appellees
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Louisiana
USDC No. 93-CV-1121-B
- - - - - - - - - -
June 14, 2000
Before KING, Chief Judge, and DAVIS and BENAVIDES, Circuit
Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
In this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights action, Gregory
Johnson, a Louisiana prisoner (# 108327), appeals the district
court’s order granting summary judgment as to most of the claims
raised and defendants named in Johnson’s complaint and the
district court’s entry of judgment in favor of the remaining
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 99-30903
-2-
defendants following a non-jury trial conducted by the magistrate
judge.
Johnson has failed to order or provide a transcript of the
trial. When an appellant has failed to order a transcript, this
court does not consider the merits of appellate issues that
depend upon a transcript for their resolution. See Powell v.
Estelle, 959 F.2d 22, 26 (5th Cir. 1992); Richardson v. Henry,
902 F.2d 414, 416 (5th Cir. 1990); FED. R. APP. P. 10(b)(2)
(requiring appellant to include a transcript relevant to
contested findings or conclusions). Accordingly, this court has
not addressed Johnson’s claims that: the magistrate judge
improperly took judicial notice of the affidavit of one of
Johnson’s witnesses to determine that the witness had made an
inconsistent statement at trial; the magistrate judge permitted a
non-medical witness for the defendants to testify that Johnson
refused medical attention after a use-of-force incident;
Johnson’s witnesses’ testimony supported his claim that
defendants had used pepper spray on him in violation of his
Eighth Amendment rights; and his witnesses’ testimony also
supported his claims that defendants retaliated against him for
filing administrative grievances against prison officials, in
violation of his First Amendment rights.
Johnson’s contention that the magistrate judge applied the
improper Eighth Amendment standard of law, as determined by the
Supreme Court, is unsupported by the record. The magistrate
judge’s conclusion that Johnson was required to show more than a
“de minimis” injury was a correct statement of this court’s law.
No. 99-30903
-3-
See Williams v. Bramer, 180 F.3d 699, 703 (5th Cir. 1999) (citing
Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 8 (1992)).
The district court’s failure to consider explicitly
Johnson’s supplemental state-law claims was not an abuse of
discretion. See Cabrol v. Town of Youngsville, 106 F.3d 101, 110
(5th Cir. 1997). The court was entitled to dismiss any state-law
claims after it properly deemed meritless the claims over which
it had original jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).
Johnson has effectively abandoned any challenge to the
district court’s dismissal of claims in granting in part the
defendants’ summary-judgment motion in 1996. He has failed to
brief those claims adequately, as he does not cite to the record
on appeal and mostly fails to cite relevant legal authority.
See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993); FED.
R. APP. P. 28(a)(9). His conclusional reiteration of his
complaints about searches of his cell and seizures of his legal
materials, about verbal threats, about violations of his due
process rights in connection with disciplinary sanctions, and
about the magistrate judge’s conclusion that he had failed to
serve defendant Darrell Vannoy with process are inadequate to
preserve those claims for appeal.
AFFIRMED.
Johnson v. Zumbro
Combined Opinion