Filed: Aug. 21, 1998
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 97-41158 Summary Calendar PAUL H. MITCHELL, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus JOSEPH K. PRICE, Warden, Coffield Unit; UNKNOWN SMITH, Major, Coffield Unit; BILLY LAYTON, Defendants-Appellees. - - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas UDC No. 6:96-CV-398 - - - - - - - - - - August 07, 1998 Before JONES, SMITH, and STEWART, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Texas state prisoner Paul H. Mitc
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 97-41158 Summary Calendar PAUL H. MITCHELL, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus JOSEPH K. PRICE, Warden, Coffield Unit; UNKNOWN SMITH, Major, Coffield Unit; BILLY LAYTON, Defendants-Appellees. - - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas UDC No. 6:96-CV-398 - - - - - - - - - - August 07, 1998 Before JONES, SMITH, and STEWART, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Texas state prisoner Paul H. Mitch..
More
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-41158
Summary Calendar
PAUL H. MITCHELL,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
JOSEPH K. PRICE, Warden, Coffield Unit;
UNKNOWN SMITH, Major, Coffield Unit;
BILLY LAYTON,
Defendants-Appellees.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
UDC No. 6:96-CV-398
- - - - - - - - - -
August 07, 1998
Before JONES, SMITH, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Texas state prisoner Paul H. Mitchell, no. 527550, appeals
the district court’s grant of summary judgment for the defendants
in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. Mitchell argues that the
defendants assigned him to work on a hoe squad in violation of
his medical restrictions. Mitchell, however, was assigned to a
medical hoe squad which complied with his medical restrictions.
Mitchell does not demonstrate that the defendants had any actual
knowledge that such a work assignment aggravated a serious
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 97-41158
-2-
medical condition. See Jackson v. Cain,
864 F.2d 1235, 1246 (5th
Cir. 1989). Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to
Mitchell, we conclude that the district court did not err by
granting summary judgment for the defendants and dismissing the
action with prejudice. See Fraire v. City of Arlington,
957 F.2d
1268, 1273 (5th Cir. 1992).
Mitchell’s motions for a jury demand and to file a reply
brief out of time are DENIED as unnecessary.
AFFIRMED. MOTIONS DENIED.