Filed: Aug. 15, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 01-40036 Summary Calendar HAROLD BUDDY REESE Plaintiff-Appellant, versus HERRERA, DR.; WOODCROFT, MR.; CONNORS, Captain; MORRIS, Major, Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. C-00-CV-223 August 14, 2001 Before GARWOOD, JOLLY and JONES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Harold Buddy Reese, Texas state prisoner #523110, appeals from the magistrate judge’s dismissal of
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 01-40036 Summary Calendar HAROLD BUDDY REESE Plaintiff-Appellant, versus HERRERA, DR.; WOODCROFT, MR.; CONNORS, Captain; MORRIS, Major, Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. C-00-CV-223 August 14, 2001 Before GARWOOD, JOLLY and JONES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Harold Buddy Reese, Texas state prisoner #523110, appeals from the magistrate judge’s dismissal of h..
More
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-40036
Summary Calendar
HAROLD BUDDY REESE
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
HERRERA, DR.; WOODCROFT, MR.;
CONNORS, Captain; MORRIS, Major,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. C-00-CV-223
August 14, 2001
Before GARWOOD, JOLLY and JONES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Harold Buddy Reese, Texas state prisoner #523110, appeals from
the magistrate judge’s dismissal of his civil rights complaint
filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 as frivolous and for failure to
state a claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1). A sua sponte
dismissal for failure to state a claim is reviewed by this court
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under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.
under a de novo standard of review. Ruiz v. United States,
160
F.3d 273, 274-75 (5th Cir. 1998); Black v. Warren,
134 F.3d 732,
733-34 (5th Cir. 1998).
Reese’s allegations, at best, amount to mere negligence and do
not constitute deliberate indifference to his serious medical
needs. Accordingly, Reese has no viable section 1983 claim. See
Gibbs v. Grimmette,
2001 WL 672741 (5th Cir. 2001); Varnado v.
Lynaugh,
920 F.2d 320, 321 (5th Cir. 1991). The judgment of the
district court therefore is
AFFIRMED.
2