Filed: Jul. 16, 2002
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 01-20698 Summary Calendar DANTE D’AGOSTINO, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus PATTERSON, Sergeant; D. MERRELL, DR.; JOHN DOE #1, DR.; JOHN DOE #2, DR.; CHANNEY, DR., Defendants-Appellees. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. H-96-CV-3826 - July 15, 2002 Before JOLLY, STEWART and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Dante D’Agostino, Texas prisoner #688309, appeals from the grant of sum
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 01-20698 Summary Calendar DANTE D’AGOSTINO, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus PATTERSON, Sergeant; D. MERRELL, DR.; JOHN DOE #1, DR.; JOHN DOE #2, DR.; CHANNEY, DR., Defendants-Appellees. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. H-96-CV-3826 - July 15, 2002 Before JOLLY, STEWART and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Dante D’Agostino, Texas prisoner #688309, appeals from the grant of summ..
More
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-20698
Summary Calendar
DANTE D’AGOSTINO,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
PATTERSON, Sergeant; D. MERRELL, DR.; JOHN DOE #1,
DR.; JOHN DOE #2, DR.; CHANNEY, DR.,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. H-96-CV-3826
--------------------
July 15, 2002
Before JOLLY, STEWART and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Dante D’Agostino, Texas prisoner #688309, appeals from the
grant of summary judgment for Sgt. Avery Patterson and Dr. E.
Thomason. D’Agostino moves to supplement the record, for
reconfiguation of the record, and for reconsideration of an order
from the Clerk of Court’s Office denying him leave to file a
reply brief out of time. D’Agostino’s motions are DENIED.
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 01-20698
-2-
The evidence demonstrates no genuine issues of material fact
regarding whether Patterson was deliberately indifferent to
D’Agostino’s serious medical needs by confiscating D’Agostino’s
back brace or whether Dr. Thomason was deliberately indifferent
for failing to ensure that D’Agostino received a brace. See
Estelle v. Gamble,
429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976). The district court
did not err by granting summary judgment for Patterson and Dr.
Thomason.
AFFIRMED.