Sadiq Adeleke v. Jason Heaton, et al

Filing

Sadiq Adeleke v. Jason Heaton, et al

Doc. 0

Case: 09-10830

Document: 00511169484

Page: 1

Date Filed: 07/12/2010

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED
N o . 09-10830 S u m m a r y Calendar July 12, 2010 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk

S A D I Q OLASUNKANMI ADELEKE, P la in t if f ­ A p p e lla n t , v. S T E V E N FLECKENSTEIN, Security Officer V, D e fe n d a n t ­ A p p e lle e .

A p p e a l from the United States District Court fo r the Northern District of Texas U S D C No. 1:08-CV-55

B e fo r e PRADO, OWEN, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges. P E R CURIAM:* S a d iq Olasunkanmi Adeleke, Texas prisoner # 792196, appeals the district c o u r t's grant of the defendant's motion for summary judgment on Adeleke's r e t a lia tio n claim. Adeleke's arguments concerning the district court's adoption of the m a g is tr a t e judge's recommendation to dismiss other defendants and other c la im s raised in Adeleke's original complaint were addressed in a separate a p p e a l, Adeleke v. Heaton, 352 F. App'x 904 (5th Cir. 2009). The law of the case
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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.
*

Dockets.Justia.com

Case: 09-10830

Document: 00511169484 Page: 2 No. 09-10830

Date Filed: 07/12/2010

d o c t r in e precludes review of these arguments in this appeal. See United States v . Williams, 517 F.3d 801, 806 (5th Cir. 2008). Additionally, Adeleke has not s h o w n that the district court erred in granting summary judgment without a p p o in tin g an attorney to assist him and without giving him an opportunity to d e v e lo p more evidence. See Baranowski v. Hart, 486 F.3d 112, 126 (5th Cir. 2 0 0 7 ); Access Telecom, Inc. v. MCI Telecomms. Corp., 197 F.3d 694, 719 (5th Cir. 1 9 9 9 ). P r is o n e r s ' claims of retaliation are regarded with skepticism and are c a r e fu lly scrutinized by the courts. Woods v. Smith, 60 F.3d 1161, 1166 (5th Cir. 1 9 9 5 ). "A prison official may not retaliate against or harass an inmate for c o m p la in in g through proper channels about a guard's misconduct." Morris v. P o w e ll, 449 F.3d 682, 684 (5th Cir. 2006). "To prevail on a claim of retaliation, a prisoner must establish (1) a specific constitutional right, (2) the defendant's in t e n t to retaliate against the prisoner for his or her exercise of that right, (3) a r e t a lia to r y adverse act, and (4) causation." Id. (quotation marks and citation o m itte d ). A d e le k e asserts that he demonstrated that Fleckenstein wrote false d is c ip lin a r y cases to justify his action of grabbing Adeleke by the shoulder on O c t o b e r 12, 2007, and that the action of the writing the disciplinary cases r e s u lt e d in Adeleke being transferred to a more dangerous side of the prison and b e in g on lockdown with a gang member who fought in the recreation yard. These arguments do not allege any retaliation based on past or threatened filing o f prison grievances by Adeleke, and they do not challenge the district court's d e t e r m i n a t io n that it could not be inferred from the chronology of events that F le c k e n s t e in took any action in retaliation for Adeleke's filing of, or threatening t o file, grievances or to report Fleckenstein or any other prison personnel. Adeleke fails to address the district court's reasons for dismissing this claim or id e n tify any error in the district court's conclusions. Accordingly, he has

a b a n d o n e d this issue. See Brinkmann v. Dallas Cnty. Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 2

Case: 09-10830

Document: 00511169484 Page: 3 No. 09-10830

Date Filed: 07/12/2010

F .2 d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987); see also Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th C ir . 1993). Because Adeleke has abandoned this element of the retaliation c la im , we need not address the other elements or the question of damages. A F F IR M E D .

3