United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
January 23, 2004
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 03-60188
Summary Calendar
PHILLIP MARCUS CARTER,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
LOWNDES COUNTY; ED PRESCOTT, Sheriff of Lowndes County,
in his individual and official capacity; RON MUSGROVE,
Superintendent, Lowndes County Adult Detention Center;
JESSIE BROOKS, Lieutenant, Lowndes County Adult Detention
Center; JOHNNY BLEVINS, Sergeant; MARTINEZ, Nurse,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Mississippi
USDC No. 1:00-CV-495
--------------------
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Phillip Carter, Mississippi prisoner # 04491, appeals from
the district court’s dismissal with prejudice of his 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 civil rights complaint and entry of judgment for the
defendants following an evidentiary hearing. Carter’s complaint
against the defendants (collectively, Lowndes County) challenged
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 03-60188
-2-
the conditions of his confinement, his medical care, and access
to religious services and to the courts, all while he was a
pretrial detainee. Carter has not briefed his argument that
Lowndes County failed to train its employees in accordance with
the Rehabilitation Act of 1974. Accordingly, he has waived this
issue on appeal. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25
(5th Cir. 1993).
An evidentiary hearing consistent with Flowers v. Phelps,
956 F.2d 488 (5th Cir.), vacated and superceded on other
grounds on reh’g, 964 F.2d 400 (5th Cir. 1992) and 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1)(B), as in this case, “amounts to a bench trial
replete with credibility determinations and findings of fact.”
McAfee v. Martin, 63 F.3d 436, 437 (5th Cir. 1995). This court
reviews factual findings under a clearly erroneous standard and
legal conclusions de novo. FED. R. CIV. P. 52(a); Newton v.
Black, 133 F.3d 301, 305 (5th Cir. 1998).
Conditions of confinement
Carter argues that, as a result of his infection with
HIV, Lowndes County placed him in solitary confinement in an
unsanitary cell, denied him “yard time” and shower privileges,
and served his meals on styrofoam trays. To prevail on a
42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim regarding the conditions of his
confinement, Carter must establish that the conditions which
allegedly caused an injury amounted to punishment and were not
No. 03-60188
-3-
incident to some other legitimate governmental purpose.
See Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 535, 538 (1979).
The record reflects that Lowndes County’s policy of
segregating inmates with contagious diseases served a two-fold
purpose of protecting the general population and protecting
infected inmates from retaliation. This policy, as well as
the method of food service to inmates infected with contagious
diseases, serves a legitimate penological interest. See Moore v.
Mabus, 976 F.2d 268, 271 (5th Cir. 1992). The district court was
entitled to rely upon Lowndes County officials’ testimony that
Carter had been offered cleaning supplies to clean his cell and
had been given “yard time” and shower privileges. See McAfee,
63 F.3d at 437. The district court did not err in dismissing
this claim.
Medical care
Carter argues that Lowndes County staff ignored his requests
to administer his medications at specific times. To establish
unconstitutional conduct related to medical care, Carter must
show that a state official acted with deliberate indifference
to a substantial risk of serious medical harm and that injuries
resulted. Wagner v. Bay City, Tex., 227 F.3d 316, 324 (5th Cir.
2000).
At the evidentiary hearing, Carter did not deny that he
had received his medications. Rather, he disagreed with the
administration schedule. He acknowledged that he did not believe
No. 03-60188
-4-
the misadministration was intentional, and he further conceded
that his viral load levels had returned to an undetectable
state. Carter’s mere disagreement with his medical treatment is
insufficient to establish deliberate indifference. See Williams
v. Treen, 671 F.2d 892, 901 (5th Cir. 1982). Accordingly, the
district court did not err in dismissing this claim.
Free exercise of religion
Carter contends that, as a result of his infection with HIV,
Lowndes County prohibited him from attending religious services
with the general population. The standard for evaluating the
validity of prison rules related to the exercise of religion
is whether the rules are “reasonably related to legitimate
penological interests.” See Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 89
(1987); Hicks v. Garner, 69 F.3d 22, 25 (5th Cir. 1995).
Lowndes County’s segregation policy for inmates with
contagious diseases served a legitimate penological interest.
See Moore, 976 F.2d at 271. Moreover, the record reflects that,
upon a segregated inmate’s request, a minister will visit the
individual cell. The district court did not err in dismissing
this claim.
Free access to the courts
Carter argues that he was denied writing materials and
access to the law library, which prevented him from filing a
No. 03-60188
-5-
motion to dismiss pending charges. To prevail on his access-to-
the-courts claim, Carter must show an actual injury. See Lewis
v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 349-51 (1996).
Without providing any detail, Carter contends in a summary
fashion that his post-conviction efforts have been prejudiced.
Carter has failed to explain, either at the evidentiary hearing
or on appeal, how his position as a litigant was adversely
affected. See Lewis, 518 U.S. at 350-53. Accordingly,
the district court did not err in dismissing this claim.
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.