IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-40808
Conference Calendar
ERNEST E. TEEGARDEN,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
VICKIE SULLIVAN, Chief Jailer at Franklin County Jail
in Mt. Vernon, Texas,
Defendant-Appellee.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 5:97-CV-112
--------------------
June 14, 2000
Before JOLLY, DAVIS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Ernest E. Teegarden, Texas prisoner #70731, appeals from the
grant of summary judgment for defendant Vickie Sullivan and the
dismissal of his civil rights action as time-barred. Teegarden
contends that the district court erred by denying his motions for
appointment of counsel and by granting the defendant’s summary-
judgment motion.
The denial of Teegarden’s motions for appointment of counsel
was not an abuse of discretion. There were no exceptional
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 99-40808
-2-
circumstances in his case requiring appointment of counsel.
Jackson v. Dallas Police Dep’t, 811 F.2d 260, 261 (5th Cir.
1986).
Teegarden does not dispute the determination that he filed
his complaint on April 29, 1997. He has abandoned any such
contention for appeal. In re Municipal Bond Reporting Antitrust
Litigation, 672 F.2d 436, 439 n.6 (5th Cir. 1982). Teegarden’s
unsworn statement and unverified response to Sullivan’s summary-
judgment motion were not competent to counter the motion.
Nissho-Iwai American Corp. v. Kline, 845 F.2d 1300, 1306 (5th
Cir. 1988). Teegarden otherwise failed to offer specific
allegations countering Sullivan’s affidavit and the records
supporting that affidavit. Because Teegarden failed to present
competent summary-judgment evidence indicating that he sought
medical treatment on or after April 29, 1995, after Sullivan
presented evidence indicating that he had not done so, the
district court did not err by granting summary judgment on
limitation grounds. Ali v. Higgs, 892 F.2d 438, 439 (5th Cir.
1990).
AFFIRMED.