United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT June 9, 2006
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 05-10148
Summary Calendar
DAVIE HARRISON,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
A. DOMINQUEZ, Doctor; NFN BAXTER; C. C. BELL, Warden;
NFN FILLION; NFN SHORT; K. EVANS, LVN; H. LEDFORD,
Officer; JESSIE CASTILLO, Officer; NFN BEACH, Captain;
NFN GREMSLEY, Nurse; RICHARD J. ROUCH, Gray County
District Attorney; JANIE COCKRELL, DIRECTOR, TEXAS
DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION;
JOE NUNN, Assistant Warden,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 2:02-CV-160
--------------------
Before JOLLY, DAVIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Davie Harrison, Texas prisoner no. 696677, appeals the
dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for failure to state a
claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Harrison argues that the
district court erred in dismissing his claim under FED. R. CIV.
P. 12(b)(6) before issuing service of process and that the court
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 05-10148
-2-
used the standard of 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Harrison’s argument fails
because the district court dismissed his suit pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915 rather than FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6).
Harrison also contends that defendants Dr. Dominguez and
Nurse Evans failed to provide him with adequate medical care and
that they were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical
needs.
Harrison has failed to allege facts to establish deliberate
indifference to a serious medical need as is required in order to
proceed under the Eighth Amendment and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See
Varnado v. Lynaugh, 920 F.2d 320, 321 (5th Cir. 1991). Harrison
also argues that the district court erred in declining to
exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his state law claims.
Because the district court dismissed all of Harrison’s federal
claims, the dismissal of the remaining state claims was not an
abuse of discretion. Bass v. Parkwood Hosp., 180 F.3d 234, 246
(5th Cir. 1999). The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
Harrison’s motions for a preliminary injunction pending appeal, a
temporary restraining order, and request for relocation are
DENIED.