United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT July 12, 2004
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 03-51258
Summary Calendar
BRIAN LEE MOORE,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
MARGO FRASIER,
Defendant-Appellee.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. A-03-CV-119
--------------------
Before JONES, BENAVIDES, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Brian Lee Moore, Texas inmate #1086312, proceeding pro se,
appeals the summary judgment dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983
complaint. Moore contends that while he was confined in the
Travis County Jail, he was required to wear full restraints
during his recreation time and was denied the right to exercise.
He asserts that the restraints were ordered in retaliation for
his refusal to identify the person who helped him escape from the
jail. Moore contends that a genuine issue of material fact
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 03-51258
-2-
existed concerning the reason for the restraints and should have
precluded the grant of summary judgment.
We review the grant of summary judgment de novo and consider
the evidence and inferences to be drawn from the evidence in the
light most favorable to the nonmovant. Fraire v. City of
Arlington, 957 F.2d 1268, 1273 (5th Cir. 1992). Summary judgment
is proper if there is no genuine issue of material fact and “the
moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” Id.;
FED. R. CIV. P. 56(c). To defeat summary judgment, the nonmovant
must set forth specific facts showing the existence of a genuine
issue for trial. FED. R. CIV. P. 56 (e). The nonmovant cannot
meet his burden with conclusional allegations, unsubstantiated
assertions, or a scintilla of evidence. Little v. Liquid Air
Corp., 37 F.3d 1069, 1075 (5th Cir. 1994) (en banc).
A condition or restriction may not be imposed during
detention for punitive purposes. Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520,
535 (1979). The effective management of a facility is a
legitimate objective that may justify the imposition of certain
conditions and restrictions and dispel inferences that a
restriction was imposed for punishment. Id. at 540. The absence
of outdoor exercise opportunities may constitute a violation of
the Eighth Amendment. See Montana v. Comm’rs Court, 659 F.2d 19,
22 (5th Cir. 1981); McGruder v. Phelps, 608 F.2d 1023, 1025 (5th
Cir. 1979).
No. 03-51258
-3-
Moore did not produce summary judgment evidence from which
one could infer that a retaliatory motivation inspired the order
that he wear full restraints during his exercise period. Tighe
v. Wall, 100 F.3d 41, 42 (5th Cir. 1996); Jones v. Greninger, 188
F.3d 322, 325 (5th Cir. 1999). He did not meet his burden of
producing competent summary judgment evidence to show that the
restraints were imposed for a punitive purpose rather than for a
legitimate objective. See Bell, 441 U.S. at 535, 540.
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.