IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-10189
Summary Calendar
PATRICK STARLING
Plaintiff - Appellant
v.
TIMOTHY REVELL, DR; CHARLES RIDGE, DR
Defendants - Appellees
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
(USDC No. 2:02-CV-7)
--------------------
August 15, 2002
Before KING, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Patrick Starling, Texas state prisoner #585248, has appealed
the dismissal as frivolous of his civil rights action alleging
inadequate medical treatment for pain in his shoulder and thigh.
We AFFIRM.
Starling contends that the district court abused its
discretion by dismissing his action with prejudice. He asserts
that that court has determined that his complaint alleges a claim
for deliberate indifference to his medical needs, under 42 U.S.C.
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 02-10189
-2-
§ 1983. The district court actually held that Starling’s claims
are frivolous because he did not allege, and cannot make a valid
allegation of, deliberate indifference.
Because Starling did not raise the issues of deliberate
indifference or seek leave to amend his complaint to so allege,
in the district court, this court will not address these issues
on appeal. See Reeves v. Collins, 27 F.3d 174, 177 (5th Cir.
1994). Furthermore, we reject Starling’s request for remand so
that he can allege deliberate indifference because on appeal, he
“has presented no more than conclusionary allegations in support
of his claim[s].” Booker v. Koonce, 2 F.3d 114, 117, 115-17 (5th
Cir. 1993). Therefore the district court’s judgment must be
AFFIRMED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Starling’s motion for leave to
withdraw or amend his brief is DENIED.
MOTION DENIED; JUDGMENT AFFIRMED.