United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS September 15, 2003
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 02-21335
Summary Calendar
DONALD W. GRANT,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
DR. EDGER HULIPAS; DR. K. KYKENDALE; DR. T. REVELL; TEXAS
DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. H-01-CV-2135
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Donald W. Grant, Texas prisoner # 397067, appeals from an
order granting summary judgment for the defendants. Grant sued
three prison doctors who treated him after he sustained a spider
bite in June 1995. Grant alleged deliberate indifference and
inadequate medical care. After reviewing Grant’s medical records
and copies of administrative grievances, the district court held
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
that the claims against Dr. Kuykendall were barred by the two-year
statute of limitations and the claims against Dr. Revell were
subject to dismissal for failure to exhaust administrative remedies
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). The district court also held
that the medical records showed that Grant received extensive
treatment and that the defendants were not deliberately
indifferent.
In its order granting the defendants’ motion for summary
judgment, the district court also denied Grant’s motion for a
“discovery period,” concluding that the defendants had already
provided Grant with evidence relating to his complaint, including
medical records, and that the issues in the case were sufficiently
clear so as not to require additional discovery. Grant argues that
the district court erred by granting summary judgment without
providing him the additional discovery period. We conclude that
the district court did not abuse its discretion.1
AFFIRMED.
1
See Moore v. Willis Indep. Sch. Dist., 233 F.3d 871, 876
(5th Cir. 2000); Int’l Shortstop, Inc. v. Rally’s, Inc., 939 F.2d
1257, 1266-67 (5th Cir. 1991).
2