United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS June 8, 2004
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 03-30945
Summary Calendar
THOMAS LOUIS PHILLIPS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
RICHARD L. STALDER; BURL CAIN; DERREN BORDELON; M. ALLEN; UNKNOWN
LEMARTANIER; DONALD DAVIS; UNKNOWN ROSS; UNKNOWN ROWE; UNKNOWN
FREGERSON; UNKNOWN GROOM; UNKNOWN TARVAR; UNKNOWN HAND, Doctor;
MARY O’NEAL; PAT TRUETT; DWAYNE MCFATTER; K. DAVIS; UNKNOWN
ELLIOT, Sergeant; ROSA STEPHENS; UNKNOWN RODESTA; FRED ALLEN;
UNKNOWN MCKEY; UNKNOWN JEANSONE; ALL DEFENDANTS; UNKNOWN WHITE;
UNKNOWN HOLMES; DORA RABALAIS; AMERICAN CORRECTIONS ASSOCIATION,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Louisiana
USDC No. 01-CV-782-D-M1
--------------------
Before BARKSDALE, EMILIO M. GARZA, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Thomas Louis Phillips, Louisiana prisoner # 94730, appeals
the district court’s order granting the defendants’ motion for
summary judgment and dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit. We
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 03-30945
-2-
review de novo the granting of a motion for summary judgment.
See Correa v. Fischer, 982 F.2d 931, 932 (5th Cir. 1993).
Phillips argues that the district court erred in dismissing
his claims of improper retaliation because the motive for
retaliation was “plain on its face.” However, Phillips has not
made a sufficient showing of either causation or intent. See
Jones v. Greninger, 188 F.3d 322, 324-25 (5th Cir. 1999).
Phillips argues that the prison employees were repeatedly
and deliberately indifferent to his medical needs, ignoring his
duty status and failing to provide adequate medical care.
However, his treatment claims reflect only a disagreement with
his treatment. See Varnado v. Lynaugh, 920 F.2d 320, 321 (5th
Cir. 1991). His duty status claims fail because he has failed to
present any evidence that the work assignments significantly
aggravated any serious physical ailment. See Jackson v. Cain,
864 F.2d 1235, 1246-47 (5th Cir. 1989).
Phillips argues that prison officials filed several improper
disciplinary reports. However, he asserts neither a sufficient
liberty interest nor a significant due process concern. See
Orellana v. Kyle, 65 F.3d 29, 31-32 (5th Cir. 1995); Williams v.
Edwards, 547 F.2d 1206 (5th Cir. 1977). Phillips also contends
that a prison warden illicitly confiscated his typewriter. The
claim fails; the availability of a post-deprivation tort cause of
action under state law is sufficient to satisfy the requirements
No. 03-30945
-3-
of due process. See Collins v. King, 743 F.2d 248, 253-54 (5th
Cir. 1984).
Phillips argues that a grooming order impermissibly
restricted his religious practice. Prison grooming regulations
which require prisoners to cut their hair and beards are
rationally related to the achievement of valid penological goals.
See Hicks v. Garner, 69 F.3d 22, 25 (5th Cir. 1995).
Finally, Phillips claims that the magistrate judge and the
district court were unduly harsh in their treatment of his
motions for discovery and service and showed improper favor in
granting leniency to the defendants. However, trial courts are
granted discretion in such matters. See Blum v. Gulf Oil Co.,
597 F.2d 936, 938 (5th Cir. 1979); Copeland v. Wasserstein,
Perella & Co., Inc., 278 F.3d 472, 484 (5th Cir. 2002); Norman v.
Apache Corp., 19 F.3d 1017, 1021 (5th Cir. 1994); Cupit v. Jones,
835 F.2d 82, 86 (5th Cir. 1987). We find no abuse of that
discretion in the actions challenged by Phillips.
Phillips has not presented a genuine issue of material fact.
See Amburgey v. Corhart Refractories Corp. Inc., 936 F.2d 805,
809 (5th Cir. 1991); FED. R. CIV. P. 56(c).
In light of the foregoing, the district court’s judgment is
AFFIRMED. Phillips's motion for the appointment of counsel is
DENIED.