United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS April 30, 2004
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 03-41344
Summary Calendar
AUGUSTUS CONRAD WILLIAMS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
ROBERT HEWETT; MELISSA PEEK,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 5:02-CV-132
--------------------
Before JONES, BENAVIDES, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Augustus Conrad Williams, Texas prisoner #615597, appeals
the grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendants
dismissing his in forma pauperis (IFP) 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit
alleging that the defendants were deliberately indifferent to the
care of his tooth. Williams argues that the defendants were
deliberately indifferent because they saw his cracked rotten
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 03-41344
-2-
tooth, which they were supposed to fix, but instead caused the
tooth to have to be pulled.
Williams did not satisfy his summary-judgment burden because
the defendants demonstrated that Williams received treatment for
his tooth. See FED. R. CIV. P. 56(c); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett,
477 U.S. 317, 324 (1986). Williams’s disagreement with prison
officials regarding his treatment does not give rise to a 42
U.S.C. § 1983 cause of action. See Varnado v. Lynaugh, 920 F.2d
320, 321 (5th Cir. 1991). The judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED.
The instant appeal was pending when this court imposed the
“three-strikes” bar against Williams in Williams v. Rodeen, No.
03-40152 (5th Cir. Oct. 21, 2002) (unpublished). Williams is
REMINDED that he remains barred under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) from
proceeding IFP in the district court or in this court in any
civil action or appeal while he is incarcerated or detained in
any facility “unless [he] is under imminent danger of serious
physical injury.” Williams’s motion for the appointment of
counsel and his request for injunctive relief and punitive
damages are DENIED.
AFFIRMED; MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL AND REQUEST FOR
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND PUNITIVE DAMAGES DENIED; 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(g) BAR REMAINS IN EFFECT.