IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-40280
Summary Calendar
WILLIE LEE HASKINS,
Plaintiff-Appellant-Cross-Appellee,
versus
MARY CHOATE, Sheriff, et al.,
Defendants,
MARY CHOATE, Sheriff; BOWIE COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT,
Defendants-Appellees-Cross-Appellants,
ROGER WISE, Medical Services,
Defendant-Appellee.
--------------------
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 5:00-CV-183
--------------------
December 3, 2002
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Willie Lee Haskins appeals the summary dismissal with
prejudice of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint alleging deliberate
indifference to his requests for medical attention pertaining to
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 02-40280
-2-
his two suicide attempts. Haskins argues that the fact that he
was housed in a “suicide” cell should have been a warning sign to
Roger Wise, the medical supervisor, and that he swore in his
complaint that he spoke directly to Wise requesting pain
medication and mental-health assistance. He further contends
that even if Wise was not directly responsible, he is responsible
as the “County Sheriff.” This court reviews the grant of summary
judgment de novo. See Tolson v. Avondale Indus., Inc., 141 F.3d
604, 608 (5th Cir. 1998).
To prevail on an Eighth Amendment claim of deliberate
indifference, a plaintiff “must allege acts or omissions
sufficiently harmful to evidence deliberate indifference to
serious medical needs.” Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106
(1976). A prison official acts with deliberate indifference only
if he “knows of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate health
or safety.” Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994).
Supervisory officials are not liable for the actions of
subordinates on a theory of vicarious liability or respondeat
superior. See Thompkins v. Belt, 828 F.2d 298, 303 (5th Cir.
1987).
First, the court notes that Wise is not the “County
Sheriff.” Wise demonstrated that his duties were primarily
administrative, with no direct medical responsibility for
Haskins. After his first suicide attempt, Haskins was placed in
a holding cell and watched by employees other than Wise.
No. 02-40280
-3-
Moreover, the medical orders received by the facility after
Haskins’s first suicide attempt reflected that the medical
opinion regarding Haskins’s need for psychological assistance was
questionable. Haskins’s conclusional allegations do not
establish a genuine issue of material fact. See Oliver v.
Collins, 904 F.2d 278, 281 (5th Cir. 1990).
Haskins’s brief addresses only his claims against Wise, and
he has waived any argument against the grant of summary judgment
in favor of Choate and the Sheriff’s Department. See Cinel v.
Connick, 15 F.3d 1338, 1345 (5th Cir. 1994).
Haskins also contends that the district court erred in
dismissing his claims without allowing discovery. Haskins’s only
request for further discovery was contained in his objections to
the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. If the
nonmoving party has not diligently pursued discovery, the court
need not accommodate the belated request. International
Shortstop, Inc. v. Rally’s, Inc., 939 F.2d 1257, 1267 (5th Cir.
1991). Moreover, on appeal, Haskins does not demonstrate that
additional discovery would have allowed him to show the existence
of a genuine issue of material fact.
He also states in his brief that he was not given the
opportunity to argue against the motion for summary judgment
against him. Haskins’s offers no evidence for, and the record
does not support, this assertion. The judgment of the district
court is AFFIRMED.