United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT April 25, 2007
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 05-41565
Summary Calendar
JOHN MICHAEL RIVERA,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
GERALD DAWSON; UP BRYANT, Major; J. SMITH, Captain; CLARENCE
THOMAS, Doctor; FRED MOORE; ROBERT WILLIAMS, Laundry Captain;
JAMES DENBY, Laundry Lieutenant,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 1:01-CV-673
--------------------
Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM, and GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
John Michael Rivera, Texas prisoner # 935107, appeals the
summary judgment granted in favor of the appellees in his
42 U.S.C. § 1983. He argues that the district court erred in
granting summary judgment on his claim that the appellees
assigned him to a job that caused his pain and aggravated his
back problems. Rivera has not demonstrated that Gerald Dawson or
Joe Smith were personally involved in assigning him to the
laundry folding position and, had they been involved, they would
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 05-41565
-2-
have had any knowledge that this work assignment would aggravate
Rivera’s medical condition. See Jackson v. Cain, 864 F.2d 1235,
1246 (5th Cir. 1989). Because Rivera’s work assignment did not
violate his sedentary work restrictions, Robert Williams and
James Denby’s failure to change Rivera’s work assignment amounted
to no more than negligence. See Reeves v. Collins, 27 F.3d 174,
176-77 (5th Cir. 1994).
Rivera argues that the appellees retaliated against him for
filing grievances and for filing this civil action. Rivera has
not presented any evidence which demonstrates that the defendants
acted with a retaliatory motive or alleged a chronology of events
from which retaliation may plausibly be inferred. See Jones v.
Greninger, 188 F.3d 322, 325 (5th Cir. 1999).
Rivera argues that the appellees failed to bring the laundry
facility into compliance with the requirements of the Americans
with Disabilities Act (ADA). Rivera may not bring a 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 action for damages against a state official in his
individual capacity to vindicate rights conferred by Title II of
the ADA. See McCarthy ex rel. Travis v. Hawkins, 381 F.3d 407,
412-14 (5th Cir. 2004). Further, because Rivera has been
transferred to another unit, any claim to injunctive relief that
he may have had is now moot. See Herman v. Holiday, 238 F.3d
660, 665 (5th Cir. 2001).1
1
Named appellee Bryant was never served and is not a party
to this appeal. The claims against named appellees Moore and
Thomas were severed by the district court, hence Moore and Thomas
No. 05-41565
-3-
AFFIRMED.
are not parties to this appeal. Rivera seemingly makes other
claims in his brief, but those claims are either inadequately
briefed or not properly on appeal for lack of his raising them
below.