United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT October 7, 2003
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 02-61059
Summary Calendar
JAMES A. STEWARD,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
DOLPH BRYAN, Sheriff; ED BLESINGAME; TIM BUSH;
OKTIBBEHA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Mississippi
USDC No. 1:01-CV-282-P
--------------------
Before REAVLEY, JOLLY and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
James A. Steward, former pretrial detainee at the Oktibbeha
County Jail, Mississippi prisoner # 84896, appeals following the
district court’s grant of summary judgment for the defendants on
his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights claims. Steward challenges the
grant of summary judgment for the defendants on his deliberate-
indifference-to-serious-medical-needs and denial-of-access-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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 02-61059
-2-
courts claims and also argues that the district court failed to
address his claim asserted under the Privacy Act.
This court reviews a district court’s grant of summary
judgment de novo. Horton v. City of Houston, 179 F.3d 188, 191
(5th Cir. 1999). Summary judgment is proper if there is no
genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party is
entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Blow v. City of San
Antonio, 236 F.3d 293, 296 (5th Cir. 2001); FED. R. CIV. P. 56(c).
The district court did not err in denying Steward’s
deliberate-indifference-to-serious-medical-needs claim, alleging
a delay in medical treatment. See Mendoza v. Lynaugh, 989 F.2d
191, 195 (5th Cir. 1993). Nor did the court err in denying
Steward’s claim that he was denied access to a law library in
violation of his right of access to courts. Cf. Degrate v.
Godwin, 84 F.3d 768, 768-69 (5th Cir. 1996). Because the private
right of action created by 5 U.S.C. § 552a(g), the Privacy Act,
is limited to actions against agencies of the federal government,
Steward has identified no error in the district court’s implicit
grant of summary judgment for the defendants on his claim
asserted under the Privacy Act. See Dittman v. California, 191
F.3d 1020, 1026 (9th Cir. 1999).
Steward has not adequately briefed his claims alleging that
the defendants 1) violated his rights to free speech and access
to courts by opening and reading his legal and other mail;
No. 02-61059
-3-
2) used excessive force; and 3) subjected him to excessive air
conditioning. Although pro se briefs are afforded liberal
construction, see Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972),
even pro se litigants must brief arguments in order to preserve
them. Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993).
Steward has not shown that he should have been allowed to
file another amended complaint before the district court ruled on
the defendants’ summary judgment motion. See FED. R. CIV.
P. 15(a). The district court did not abuse its discretion in
granting summary judgment for the defendants without allowing
Steward to engage in additional discovery. See Brown v. Miss.
Valley State Univ., 311 F.3d 328, 332-33 (5th Cir. 2002).
Steward contends that the district court erred in not
advising him of his summary judgment burden. “[P]articularized
additional notice of the potential consequences of a summary
judgment motion and the right to submit opposing affidavits need
not be afforded a pro se litigant.” Martin v. Harrison County
Jail, 975 F.2d 192, 193 (5th Cir. 1992).
AFFIRMED.