IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-40970
Summary Calendar
REGINALD JONES,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
K. V. PITTMAN; ET AL.,
Defendants,
K. V. PITTMAN, Major; DAVID BONE, Captain;
CHARLES FRIZZELL, Classification Counselor;
THOMAS R. BUTLER, Classification Counselor;
J. KENT, Director of Health Services;
L. HEUSZEL, Assistant Warden; R. PUSTKA, Assistant Warden;
J. E. ALFORD, Senior Warden; K. RAMSEY, Regional Director,
Defendants-Appellees.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 9:98-CV-149
- - - - - - - - - -
May 16, 2002
Before DAVIS, BENAVIDES, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Reginald Jones, a Texas prisoner (# 781143), appeals the
district court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of the
defendants and dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights
complaint.
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 01-40970
-2-
Jones has contended that the defendants, most of whom sat on
the Eastham Unit Classification Committee (“UCC”) that assigns
inmates to prison jobs, were deliberately indifferent to his
serious medical needs by requiring him to perform a hoe-squad job
that, Jones alleged, his medical restrictions precluding him from
performing. The defendants’ summary-judgment evidence reflected
that the UCC, in assigning an inmate to a job, was required to
assess an inmate’s abilities by relying on the prison medical
staff’s evaluation of his medical limitations. Even if it were
assumed arguendo that Jones was unable to perform the assigned
work, Jones has failed to show that the UCC officials, relying on
both prison policies and Jones’ existing medical records, knew
that he faced a substantial risk of serious harm if he were
assigned to the hoe-squad work. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S.
825, 837, 847 (1994). He failed to establish that the named
defendants were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical
needs. See Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976); Jackson
v. Cain, 864 F.2d 1235, 1246 (5th Cir. 1989).
To the extent that Jones alleged in his civil rights
complaint that several supervisory defendants violated his due
process rights by ignoring his grievances and appeals concerning
the job assignment, Jones’ failure to brief arguments against
such defendants means that such arguments are waived. See Yohey
v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993); FED. R. APP.
P. 28(a)(9).
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.