United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT July 26, 2007
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 06-50191
Summary Calendar
CHARLES RAYMOND LEE, JR.,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
JIM WILSON, Sheriff Williamson County; GEORGE DECKARD, Jailor
Williamson County Jail,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 1:04-CV-773
--------------------
Before KING, BARKSDALE, and GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Charles Raymond Lee, Jr., Texas prisoner # 904078, filed a
pro se 42 U.S.C. § 1983 lawsuit against Deckard and Sheriff Jim
Wilson, in their individual and official capacities. After the
district court dismissed Lee’s case on summary judgment, Lee
timely filed a notice of appeal.
Lee appeals the dismissal of his claims that Deckard
violated his constitutional rights by using excessive force and
denying him medical treatment. This court reviews de novo a
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 06-50191
-2-
district court’s order granting a party’s summary-judgment
motion. Whittaker v. BellSouth Telecomms., Inc., 206 F.3d 532,
534 (5th Cir. 2000); see also FED. R. CIV. P. 56(c); Celotex Corp.
v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986).
Lee’s excessive force claim was based on his allegation that
he suffered a “busted lip” that bled when Deckard closed a portal
door through which food is passed. Lee further described his lip
injury as the kind that might be incurred in a basketball game,
and he alleged that he suffered headaches as a result of his
injury. Crediting Lee’s allegations as true under the summary
judgment standard, we affirm the dismissal of his excessive force
claim because Lee’s injury was de minimis in the context given
that Deckard’s closing of the portal door was a reasonable
attempt to maintain order in response to Lee’s complaints. See
Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 6-7 (1992); Glenn v. City of
Tyler, 242 F.3d 307, 314 (5th Cir. 2001); see also Hare v. City
of Corinth, 74 F.3d 633, 639 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc) (pretrial
detainee case).
Lee also appeals his claim that he was denied medical care
for his injured lip. Given the circumstances, the district court
correctly entered summary judgment for the defendants because
Lee’s injury was de minimis and their conduct was not “‘repugnant
to the conscience of mankind.’” Stewart v. Murphy, 174 F.3d 530,
534 (5th Cir. 1999) (quoting McCormick v. Stalder, 105 F.3d 1059,
1061 (5th Cir. 1997)); see also Hare, 74 F.3d at 639, 648.
No. 06-50191
-3-
Lee has moved for appointment of counsel, arguing that
appointment of counsel is needed in order to obtain records,
interview witnesses, and investigate Lee’s claims. Lee has not
shown exceptional circumstances, and his request for appointment
of counsel is denied. Cupit v. Jones, 835 F.2d 82, 86 (5th Cir.
1987).
AFFIRMED; MOTION DENIED.