IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
_____________________
No. 99-51103
Summary Calendar
_____________________
OLIE MITCHELL,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
WACKENHUT CORRECTIONS;
J. D. WILLIAMS, Warden,
Travis County Community Justice
Center; TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF
CRIMINAL JUSTICE, INSTITUTIONAL
DIVISION; LUCAS, Ms., Supply Supervisor,
Defendants-Appellees.
_________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court for the
Western District of Texas
USDC No. A-99-CV-198-JN
_________________________________________________________________
June 26, 2000
Before JOLLY, JONES, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Olie Mitchell, Texas prisoner # 620690, appeals from the
district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the
defendants in his action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He argues
that, as he never received a copy of the magistrate judge’s report
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
and recommendation, he should not be limited to plain error review
on appeal. He further contends that the district court erred in
concluding that his allegations fail to describe a violation of his
Eighth Amendment rights.
We accept as true Mitchell’s assertion that did not receive a
copy of the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation.
Accordingly, we apply the summary judgment standard of review.
Summary judgment is proper if the pleadings, depositions, answers
to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with any
affidavits filed in support of the motion, show that there is no
genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is
entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c).
The summary judgment evidence is reviewed in the light most
favorable to the nonmovant. Melton v. Teachers Ins. & Annuity
Ass'n of America, 114 F.3d 557, 559 (5th Cir. 1997). If the moving
party meets the initial burden of showing that there is no genuine
issue, the burden shifts to the nonmovant to set forth specific
facts showing the existence of a genuine issue for trial. Fed. R.
Civ. P. 56(e). The nonmovant cannot satisfy his summary judgment
burden with conclusional allegations, unsubstantiated assertions,
or only a scintilla of evidence. Little v. Liquid Air Corp., 37
F.3d 1069, 1075 (5th Cir. 1994) (en banc).
2
The Constitution “does not mandate comfortable prisons," but
neither does it permit “the wanton and unnecessary infliction of
pain." Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 347, 349 (1981). In
Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 832 (1994), the Supreme Court held
that the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual
punishment requires prison officials to provide “humane conditions
of confinement," and to ensure that “inmates receive adequate food,
clothing, shelter, and medical care. . . ." An inmate must satisfy
two requirements to establish an Eighth Amendment violation.
First, the deprivation alleged must be sufficiently serious, such
that the prison official's act or omission results in the denial of
“the minimal civilized measure of life's necessities.” Id. at 834.
Second, the inmate must show that the prison official possessed a
“sufficiently culpable state of mind." Id. (citation and quotation
omitted). In prison conditions cases, the state of mind required
“is one of ‘deliberate indifference’ to inmate health or safety.”
Palmer v. Johnson, 193 F.3d 346, 351 (5th Cir. 1999) (citation
omitted). To establish deliberate indifference, a prisoner must
show that the defendants “(1) were aware of facts from which an
inference of an excessive risk to the prisoner's health or safety
could be drawn and (2) that they actually drew an inference that
such potential for harm existed." Bradley v. Puckett, 157 F.3d
1022, 1025 (5th Cir. 1998).
3
Although prisoners do have a right to be protected from
extreme cold, see Palmer, 193 F.3d at 351, Mitchell has failed to
demonstrate that the circumstances of his exposure implicate his
Eighth Amendment rights. The longest period he complains of being
exposed to the 40- to 50-degree temperatures without proper attire
is 20 minutes. Exposure to these temperatures for such brief
periods, though doubtlessly uncomfortable, does not rise to the
level of cruel and unusual punishment. See Farmer, 511 U.S. at
833. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the district court’s grant of summary
judgment in favor of the defendants.
A F F I R M E D.
4