United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT January 27, 2005
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 04-50795
Summary Calendar
LARRY KEELE
Plaintiff - Appellant
v.
TONY MIRANDA, JOE JACKSON, SANDRA MARTINEZ, SYLVIA ESPINO
TERAN
Defendants - Appellees
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 5:04-CV-467
--------------------
Before KING, Chief Judge, and JONES and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Larry Keele, Texas prisoner # 1077576, filed a civil-rights
complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that laundry
personnel at the Bexar County Adult Detention Center were
deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs while he
was incarcerated there as a pre-trial detainee. This is Keele’s
fourth such complaint. The district court dismissed Keele’s
complaint with prejudice pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 41(b) for
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 04-50795
-2-
failure to comply with a court order that he provide additional
evidence and facts establishing his claims.
Keele argues on appeal that he did not comply with the court
order because he was unaware it had been issued until he received
a copy of the magistrate’s recommendation that his complaint be
dismissed. We will not consider this argument since Keele failed
to raise it in the district court. See Leverette v. Louisville
Ladder Co., 183 F.3d 339, 342 (5th Cir. 1999).
The record shows that Keele’s refusal to comply with the
magistrate judge’s order to provide additional evidence and and
facts in support of his claims was deliberate and contumacious.
Further, the district court specifically found that a sanction
less than dismissal with prejudice would have had no effect on
Keele. The district court did not abuse its discretion in
dismissing Keele’s complaint with prejudice under Rule 41(b).
See Berry v. CIGNA/RSI-CIGNA, 975 F.2d 1188, 1191 (5th Cir.
1992); McCullough v. Lynaugh, 835 F.2d 1126, 1127 (5th Cir.
1988). The judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED.