IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-41086
Summary Calendar
KENNETH MARSHALL JOHNSON,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
GARY JOHNSON, Warden; THOMAS PRASIFKA, Warden; ERNEST
GARCIA, Captain; Correctional Officer III #371072; NOWARD BELL;
JOSEPH RANDOLPH, Lieutenant, TDCJ-ID; KATHI S. CHAMBERLAIN,
Librarian II, TDCJ-ID,
Defendants-Appellees.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. V-99-CV-2
- - - - - - - - - -
July 18, 2002
Before DAVIS, BENAVIDES, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges
PER CURIAM:*
Kenneth Marshall Johnson, Texas prisoner #688601, appeals the
district court’s dismissal of his civil rights suit as frivolous.
42 U.S.C. § 1983; 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Johnson has failed to
demonstrate that prison officials knew that his assigned work,
pulling weeds and sacking them, would aggravate his back or carpal
tunnel conditions. See Jackson v. Cain, 864 F.2d 1235, 1245-46
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 01-41086
-2-
(5th Cir. 1989). The time restriction of four hours of work was
not violated, and Dr. Adams testified that the work of which
Johnson complains was consistent with the restrictions occasioned
by his back problems. The district court did not abuse its
discretion in dismissing Johnson’s claim that his work assignment
was violative of the restrictions occasioned by his back condition.
Johnson argues that this case should be remanded because no
evidence was presented at the Spears hearing regarding his work
restriction against the repetitive use of hands. Although there
was no direct evidence presented upon this work restriction, Dr.
Adams summarized Plaintiff’s work restrictions and testified that
pulling weeds would not violate his work restrictions. We may
assume that Dr. Adams was familiar with Plaintiff’s work
restrictions and that he did not think that the restriction against
the repetitive use of hands was relevant to pulling weeds. We
accordingly find that the district court did not abuse its
discretion in dismissing Johnson’s claim that his work assignment
was violative of the restrictions occasioned by his carpal tunnel
condition.
Johnson’s arguments that it was improper for the court to use
prison records to counter his testimony, and that its focus on his
credibility rather than on the plausibility of his claim was
somehow erroneous, are frivolous. The court did not use medical
records to refute Johnson’s testimony. It relied on the testimony
of Dr. Adams, who related Johnson’s medical conditions and work
No. 01-41086
-3-
restrictions. The court’s credibility determination was
sufficiently limited in that it went on to detail the objective
reasons for its dismissal of Johnson’s retaliation claim. See
Norton v. Dimazana, 122 F.3d 286, 292 (5th Cir. 1997). Johnson is
not entitled to relief on this claim.
Johnson’s argument that the court never reached a conclusion
on his retaliation claims is frivolous. The district court
specifically addressed his retaliation claims.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing
Johnson’s claim that his work assignment violated his work
restrictions. The dismissal of that claim is hereby AFFIRMED. See
Siglar v. Hightower, 112 F.3d 191, 193 (5th Cir. 1997); 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915A.
AFFIRMED.