United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT August 3, 2007
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 05-11454
Summary Calendar
STEVEN RAY NELSON,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
KEVIN CAULEY; ET AL.,
Defendants,
CAROLYN MYRICK, Nurse; LAKE POINT HOSPITAL,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 3:04-CV-828
--------------------
Before DeMOSS, STEWART, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Steven Ray Nelson, Texas prisoner # 1130776, appeals the
district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of defendants
Carolyn Myrick and Lake Point Hospital in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983
action. Nelson contends that the district court erred in
considering affidavits from Myrick and Deputy Randal C.
Garlington. The affidavits in question constituted appropriate
summary judgment evidence. See FED. R. CIV. P. 56(e).
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 05-11454
-2-
Nelson contends that the district court erred in granting
summary judgment in favor of the defendants on his claim that
Myrick catheterized him without his consent to obtain a urine
sample. He has not established that Myrick’s actions were the
result of compulsion from the State that would render her a
“state actor” for § 1983 purposes. See Richard v. Hoechst
Celanese Chem. Group, Inc., 355 F.3d 345, 352 (5th Cir. 2003).
Nelson also asserts that the district court erred in failing
to consider his claim that Myrick violated his constitutional
rights by testifying about the results of the urine sample at his
criminal trial. Although the court failed to consider this
claim, this court may affirm the denial of relief on any ground
evident in the record. See Bickford v. Int’l Speedway Corp., 654
F.2d 1028, 1031 (5th Cir. 1981). Nelson has not shown that
Myrick’s testimony gives rise to a § 1983 claim. See Briscoe v.
LaHue, 460 U.S. 325, 329-30 (1983). His conclusional allegations
that Myrick conspired with the district attorney are insufficient
to overcome summary judgment. See Little v. Liquid Air Corp., 37
F.3d 1069, 1075 (5th Cir. 1994)(en banc); Lynch v. Cannatella,
810 F.2d 1362, 1369-70 (5th Cir. 1987).
Nelson has not established that the district court erred in
granting summary judgment. See Cousin v. Small, 325 F.3d 627,
637 (5th Cir. 2003). Consequently, the judgment of the district
court is AFFIRMED.