Carson v. Bowles

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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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-