IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-40591
Summary Calendar
COY LYNN OWENS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BUREAU OF PRISONS; ET AL.,
Defendants,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BUREAU OF PRISONS,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
(USDC No. 5:00-CV-255)
October 30, 2002
Before BARKSDALE, DeMOSS, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Coy Lynn Owens, federal prisoner # 04702-078, appeals from the
district court's order granting summary judgment to the defendant
in his suit brought pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act
("FTCA"), 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346(b). Owens alleged that while he was
being transferred to FCI Texarkana, employees of the Bureau of
* 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under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.
Prisons improperly applied leg restraints, which caused injury to
his left foot and ankle. After a de novo review, we affirm.
The summary judgment evidence included medical records and
declarations from medical personnel showing that when Owens arrived
at FCI Texarkana his lower extremities were normal and that he did
not complain about either the leg restraints or an injury to his
left foot. Owens argues that the summary judgment evidence was
improper because the declarations were unsworn. The district court
did not err in considering the declarations, however, because they
were made under penalty of perjury and asserted that the statements
therein were true and correct in compliance with 28 U.S.C. § 1746.
See Nissho-Iwai American Corp. v. Kline, 845 F.2d 1300, 1306 (5th
Cir. 1988).
After the summary judgment evidence was proffered, it became
Owens's burden "to set forth specific facts to establish a genuine
issue of material fact, without merely resting on allegations and
denials." See Martinez v. Bally's Louisiana, Inc., 244 F.3d 474,
476 (5th Cir. 2001). We conclude that Owens failed to come forward
with "significant probative evidence" on which a jury could
reasonably find in his favor, see State Farm Life Ins. Co. v.
Gutterman, 896 F.2d 116, 118 (5th Cir. 1990), and the district
court did not err in granting summary judgment to the defendant.
Although Owens's complaint also alleged that he was denied
proper medical care for his foot injury, he has not adequately
briefed such a claim in this court. Accordingly, that claim is
2
deemed abandoned. Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir.
1993).
Finally, Owens has filed a motion to supplement the record
with photographs of his foot taken after the district court granted
summary judgment. Because this court does not ordinarily expand
the record to consider evidence that was not before the district
court, the motion is DENIED. See Trinity Industries, Inc. v.
Martin, 963 F.2d 795, 799 (5th Cir. 1992).
AFFIRMED. MOTION DENIED.
g:\opin-sc\02-40591.opn.wpd
3