United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT September 13, 2004
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 03-60771
Summary Calendar
RONNIE MCLAUGHLIN,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
STAIN FARRIES; FRED ANDREW,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Mississippi
USDC No. 4:02-CV-165-LN
--------------------
Before EMILIO M. GARZA, DeMOSS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges
PER CURIAM:*
Ronnie McLaughlin (McLaughlin), Mississippi prisoner
# 38738, appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment
in favor of the defendants and the dismissal of his claims under
42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Mississippi state law. McLaughlin filed his
complaint to recover damages for injuries he sustained in a slip-
and-fall accident during his incarceration at Wayne County Jail.
He alleges that he slipped on water that had accumulated on the
floor of his cell due to a leaky air conditioning unit. He
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 03-60771
-2-
further alleges that the defendants were aware of the leaky air
conditioning unit and negligently failed to clean up the water.
We review a grant of summary judgment de novo. Guillory v.
Domtar Indus., Inc., 95 F.3d 1320, 1326 (5th Cir. 1996). “The
Constitution does not mandate comfortable prisons . . . but
neither does it permit inhuman ones, and it is now settled that
the treatment a prisoner receives in prison and the conditions
under which he is confined are subject to scrutiny under the
Eighth Amendment.” Woods v. Edwards, 51 F.3d 577, 581 (5th Cir.
1995) (internal quotations omitted). Accordingly, a prison
official violates an inmate’s constitutional rights only if he
“1) shows a subjective deliberate indifference to 2) conditions
posing a substantial risk of serious harm to the inmate.” Gates
v. Cook, 376 F.3d 323, 333 (5th Cir. 2004) (citing Farmer v.
Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 833-34 (1994)).
McLaughlin has failed to provide sufficient evidence to make
this showing. At most, he has alleged a claim of negligence,
which is not actionable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Marsh v. Jones,
53 F.3d 707, 711-712 (5th Cir. 1995) (inmate’s alleged damages
stemming from a slip-and-fall due to a leaky air conditioning
unit not actionable under section 1983). See also LeMaire v.
Maass, 12 F.3d 1444, 1457 (9th Cir. 1993) (“slippery prison
floors . . . do not state even an arguable claim for cruel and
unusual punishment.”). Therefore, the district court did not err
No. 03-60771
-3-
in granting the defendants’ motion for summary judgment as to
this claim.
Additionally, McLaughlin argues that he was not given an
opportunity to conduct discovery and to adequately oppose the
motion for summary judgment. We find this argument to be without
merit. A district court has broad discretion in dealing with
discovery matters. Beattie v. Madison County Sch. Dist., 254 F.3d
595, 606 (5th Cir. 2001). Here, the magistrate’s decision to
limit discovery after conducting a discovery conference during an
omnibus hearing was not an abuse of that discretion. Moreover,
McLaughlin did not seek a continuance of the motion for summary
judgment pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 56(f). Nor did he show how
additional discovery was necessary to establish any issue of
material fact that would have precluded summary judgment. See
Krim v. Banctexas Group, Inc., 989 F.2d 1435, 1442 (5th Cir.
1993).
McLaughlin’s argument that the district court abused its
discretion in not appointing counsel to represent him in the
district court is also without merit. There is no general right
to counsel in civil rights actions. See Branch v. Cole, 686 F.2d
264, 266 (5th Cir. 1982). Because McLaughlin’s case did not
present exceptional circumstances, the district court did not
abuse its discretion in denying his motions for appointment of
counsel. See Ulmer v. Chancellor, 691 F.2d 209, 212 (5th Cir.
1982); Robbins v. Maggio, 750 F.2d 405, 413 (5th Cir. 1985).
No. 03-60771
-4-
McLaughlin does not brief his assertion that the district
court erred in dismissing his state law claims pursuant to the
Mississippi Tort Claims Act. Although pro se briefs are afforded
liberal construction, even pro se litigants must brief arguments
in order to preserve them. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222,
224-25 (5th Cir. 1993). By failing to identify any error in the
district court’s judgment, McLaughlin has abandoned the issue on
appeal. Id. at 225. Accordingly, the district court’s judgment
is AFFIRMED.