Filed: Jul. 09, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT _ No. 96-40227 Summary Calendar _ MICHAEL ARTHUR MAGOON, Plaintiff-Appellant, VERSUS WAYNE SCOTT, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division, et al., Defendants-Appellees. ***************************************************************** MICHAEL ARTHUR MAGOON, Plaintiff-Appellant, VERSUS WAYNE SCOTT, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division, et al., Defendants-Appellees. _ Appeal
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT _ No. 96-40227 Summary Calendar _ MICHAEL ARTHUR MAGOON, Plaintiff-Appellant, VERSUS WAYNE SCOTT, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division, et al., Defendants-Appellees. ***************************************************************** MICHAEL ARTHUR MAGOON, Plaintiff-Appellant, VERSUS WAYNE SCOTT, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division, et al., Defendants-Appellees. _ Appeal ..
More
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
_______________
No. 96-40227
Summary Calendar
_______________
MICHAEL ARTHUR MAGOON,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
VERSUS
WAYNE SCOTT,
Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice,
Institutional Division, et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
*****************************************************************
MICHAEL ARTHUR MAGOON,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
VERSUS
WAYNE SCOTT,
Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice,
Institutional Division, et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
(6:95-CV-240)
_________________________
June 21, 1996
Before SMITH, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Michael Magoon appeals the dismissal of his suit under
28 U.S.C. § 1915(d). Magoon contends that medical personnel should
have performed an x-ray on his back and should have concluded that
his prior back injuries precluded him from working. His complaints
are, at best, either allegations of negligent treatment or disputes
regarding the type of treatment he received and, thus, do not
evidence constitutionally inadequate treatment. See Johnson v.
Treen,
759 F.2d 1236, 1238 (5th Cir. 1985).
Magoon avers that he has been denied access to the court.
Although the magistrate judge should have addressed Magoon’s court-
access claim, Magoon has not identified any reversible error. See
Walker v. Navarro County Jail,
4 F.3d 410, 413 (5th Cir. 1993).
Accordingly, the judgment is AFFIRMED.
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion
should not be published except under the limited circumstances set forth
in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
2