IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
_____________________
No. 95-10115
Summary Calendar
_____________________
ARTHUR W. CARSON,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
JIM BOWLES, Sheriff; A. L. THORNTON;
JOHN PRICE,
Defendants,
and
ADRIAN COLLYNS,
Defendant-Appellee.
_________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 3:89-CV-2116-H
_________________________________________________________________
January 17, 1996
Before JOLLY, JONES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Texas prisoner Arthur Carson appeals the grant of summary
judgment for Dr. Adrian Collyns. Carson contends: 1) the district
court erred by granting summary judgment for Collyns; 2) the
district court erred by granting summary judgment without granting
Carson's motions to amend his complaint to add the correct
*
Pursuant to Local 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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 Local Rule 47.5.4.
defendants; 3) the magistrate judge should have been recused; 4)
the district court erred by dismissing his retaliation claim
against defendant Thornton and dismissing his medical care claim
against defendant Bowles; and 5) the magistrate judge held a
defective Spears1 hearing.
We have reviewed the briefs and the record and have determined
that Collyns carried his burden of showing no genuine issue of
material fact. Carson did not carry his burden of showing the
existence of a genuine issue for trial. The district court need
not have granted Carson a continuance to obtain a written
deposition from Lieutenant Stroud; beyond his allegation that
Stroud had submitted his grievances to Collyns, he did not indicate
how Stroud's written deposition would create an issue of material
fact. The documents Carson attached to his objections to the
magistrate judge's report were submitted too late for consideration
by the district court.
Carson's motions to amend his complaint were unrelated to his
medical care claims. The district court need not have allowed him
to amend his complaint.
Adverse rulings alone do not call into question a judge's
impartiality. Carson's contention that the magistrate judge should
have been recused is unavailing.
1
Spears v. McCotter, 766 F.2d 179 (5th Cir. 1985).
-2-
Carson named only Collyns as a defendant in his notice of
appeal and indicated that he wished to appeal the district court's
grant of summary judgment on January 18, 1995. Carson did not
indicate that he wished to appeal the August 13, 1991 dismissal of
his claims against Bowles, Price, and Thornton for failure to state
a claim. Carson did not give fair notice to those three defendants
that he wished to appeal the dismissal of his claims against them.
We lack jurisdiction to consider Carson's contentions regarding the
dismissal of his complaint regarding Bowles, Price, and Thornton
for failure to state a claim.
Carson obtained a favorable outcome in the Spears hearing
regarding his medical care claim against Collyns; his claim was
allowed to proceed. Carson cannot complain about any defects at
the hearing regarding the medical claim against Collyns. Because
we lack jurisdiction to consider Carson's substantive claims
against any other defendants, we need not consider Carson's
contentions about any defects at the Spears hearing that might have
affected those claims.
The summary judgment for Collyns is AFFIRMED. Carson's appeal
of the dismissal of his complaint against the other defendants for
failure to state a claim is DISMISSED.
AFFIRMED and DISMISSED.
-3-