Case: 19-60182 Document: 00515589822 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/05/2020
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
October 5, 2020
No. 19-60182 Lyle W. Cayce
Summary Calendar Clerk
Nevin Kerr Whetstone,
Plaintiff—Appellant,
versus
Angela Brown, Certified Nurse Practitioner/Medical Contractor,
Centurion MHM; Pam Jarrett, Certified Nurse
Practitioner/Medical Contractor, Centurion MHM; Hill, Certified
Nurse Practitioner, Wexford Medical; Centurion of
Mississippi,
Defendants—Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Mississippi
USDC No. 4:17-CV-158
Before Higginbotham, Jones, and Costa, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
*
Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Case: 19-60182 Document: 00515589822 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/05/2020
No. 19-60182
Nevin Kerr Whetstone, Mississippi prisoner # 56663, filed a
42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against Pelicia Hall, Richard Pennington,
Dr. Woodard, Nurse Hill, Angela Brown, and Pamela Jarrett. Whetstone
alleged that his sacrum locked in the wrong position when he was young and,
that since that time, his spine has continued to degenerate. He complained
that he was not receiving adequate care for the condition while he was
incarcerated in Mississippi prisons.
The magistrate judge (MJ) found that Whetstone did not allege any
personal involvement on the part of Hall and dismissed the claims against her
for failure to state a claim. The claims against Pennington were dismissed for
failure to state a claim because Whetstone complained only that Pennington
did not adequately process his grievance. The MJ dismissed Whetstone’s
claims against Dr. Woodward and Nurse Hill as barred by the statute of
limitations. The MJ granted summary judgment in favor of Brown and
Jarrett, finding that Whetstone failed to exhaust administrative remedies as
to his claims against them and, alternatively, that he did not show deliberate
indifference to his serious medical needs.
In his initial brief, Whetstone argues only that he should be given
counsel because he cannot file a brief due to relentless pain. In his reply brief,
Whetstone briefly states that he was not required to exhaust administrative
remedies and asserts that he established a claim of deliberate indifference.
Because Whetstone completely fails to brief the MJ’s reasons for
dismissing claims against Hall, Pennington, Dr. Woodard, and Nurse Hill,
any challenge to the dismissal of those claims is abandoned. See Hughes v.
Johnson, 191 F.3d 607, 613 (5th Cir. 1999). Additionally, his conclusory
assertions fail to show that he should be excused from the exhaustion
requirement. See 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a); see also FED. R. CIV. P. 56(a). We
need not reach the alternative grounds for dismissal. See Walker v. Thompson,
2
Case: 19-60182 Document: 00515589822 Page: 3 Date Filed: 10/05/2020
No. 19-60182
214 F.3d 615, 624-25 (5th Cir. 2000), abrogated on other grounds by Burlington
N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53, 67 (2006); Capital Concepts Props.
85-1 v. Mut. First, Inc., 35 F.3d 170, 176 (5th Cir. 1994).
The judgment is AFFIRMED. Whetstone’s motion for the
appointment of counsel is DENIED.
3