UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
for the Fifth Circuit
_____________________________________
No. 94-30567
Summary Calendar
_____________________________________
BARRY GEORGE McBRIDE,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
VERSUS
CHARLES C. FOTI, JR., ET AL.,
Defendants-Appellees.
______________________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana
93 CV 775 L/F
______________________________________________________
June 23, 1995
Before DUHÉ, WIENER, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:1
Appellant Barry McBride appeals the adverse judgment in his
civil rights suit against the Criminal Sheriff of Orleans Parish
and several of his employees. We affirm, but in some cases for
reasons different from those of the district court.
We first note that although Appellant sued Captain William
Short, Michael R. Geerken, Chief Gary Bordelon, J. D. Smith, Dr.
Truman Mays and Dr. Little, he has stated no claim whatsoever
1
Local Rule 47.5 provides: "The publication of opinions
that have no precedential value and merely decide particular cases
on the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes needless
expense on the public and burdens on the legal profession."
Pursuant to that Rule, the Court has determined that this opinion
should not be published.
against any of them for he has alleged no causal connection between
what he complains of and these defendants. Dismissal as to them is
affirmed.
We next note that Appellant alleges that he was incarcerated
as a pretrial detainee. Yet he argued in the trial court, and he
does so here, that he is entitled to the protection afforded by the
Eighth Amendment. The Magistrate Judge applied that standard as
did the district judge. This standard applies to convicted
persons. However, we conclude that the error, if any, was harmless
because no claim has been stated under that standard nor under the
lesser standard applicable to pretrial detainees. There is
absolutely no evidence that any condition complained of, assuming
they existed, was imposed for a punitive purpose or with punitive
intent. Cupit v. Jones, 835 F. 2d 82 (5th Cir. 1987).
McBride's first contention is that he was subjected to
inhumane conditions while incarcerated at Central Lockup. However,
he offered no evidence whatsoever as to this period of his
incarceration. Additionally, the evidence offered by the
Defendants, and accepted by the fact-finder, conclusively shows
that there were no adverse conditions of confinement created by
Central Lockup officials for a punitive purpose or with punitive
intent. We note also that the record does not show that Central
Lockup is under the Sheriff's jurisdiction.
Appellant's evidence showed that while he was housed at the
House of Detention (and perhaps elsewhere) support stockings were
prescribed several times for his varicose vein condition but were
2
never provided. The district court concluded that the provision of
elasticized bandages was an adequate substitute, and the record
supports that conclusion.
Finally McBride makes several claims concerning being housed
in a psychiatric ward for a time, and about the medication
administered to him there. The physician who prescribed the
medication is not a defendant. Appellant's testimony on this issue
was flatly contradicted by the records of the institution and the
testimony of the medical staff. The Magistrate Judge credited that
testimony over the unsupported testimony of Appellant and the
record supports that determination. No constitutional violation
has been shown.
AFFIRMED.
3