United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT August 15, 2003
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 02-51412
Summary Calendar
CORNELIUS RAY SEPHUS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
HATTIE WHITFIELD; REGINALD SMITH, M.D.; FAFAEL OLIVER,
Lieutenant; ALBERTO DIAZ, Sergeant; ANGELA RODRIGUEZ, Nurse;
V. FIVAS; JANET WHITE; R. MALAER; M. MYERS; E. CORROLL; TERESA
SIMONS; Z. Z. VACANT, Nurse; MONA MARTINEZ; SHIRLEY PFEIL,
Licensed Vocational Nurse; MARTHA BYRD; PEGGY GOHLKE; JOSEPH
GILL; DEBRA GLOOR; JOYCE COMFORT; D. A. RUBY; DOMINGO
CARRILLO, Major; LAURIE STEELE,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. SA-02-CV-450-JWP
--------------------
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Cornelius Ray Sephus, Texas prisoner #635586, appeals from
the magistrate judge’s grant of summary judgment for the
defendants in his civil-rights lawsuit, filed pursuant to
42 U.S.C. § 1983. This court reviews a grant of summary judgment
de novo, using the same standard applicable in the district
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 02-51412
-2-
court. See Melton v. Teachers Ins. & Annuity Ass’n of America,
114 F.3d 557, 559 (5th Cir. 1997).
Sephus argues that the magistrate judge failed to consider
his submitted exhibits and that those exhibits presented a
genuine issue as to whether the defendants were deliberately
indifferent to his medical needs. Examination of the magistrate
judge’s judgment clearly indicates that Sephus’s exhibits were
considered and that no genuine issue as to any material fact
existed regarding Sephus’s claims. See FED. R. CIV. P. 56(c). At
most, the evidence in the record alleged negligence by the
defendants, which is not actionable. See Varnado v. Lynaugh, 920
F.2d 320, 321 (5th Cir. 1991).
Accordingly, the magistrate judge’s judgment is AFFIRMED.
All outstanding motions are DENIED.
AFFIRMED; OUTSTANDING MOTIONS DENIED.