Joseph Oguntodu v. Cheryl Gary, et al
Filing
UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [13-11099 Dismissed as frivolous] Judge: PEH , Judge: JLD , Judge: JEG Mandate pull date is 05/30/2014 [13-11099]
Case: 13-11099
Document: 00512625071
Page: 1
Date Filed: 05/09/2014
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
No. 13-11099
Summary Calendar
May 9, 2014
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
JOSEPH OYE OGUNTODU, also known as Ayoola Oguntodu,
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
CHERYL GARY, Nurse Practitioner; MICHAEL BRANIGAN,
Administrator; ASHLEIGH ROBERTS, LVN; NFN CHACON, LVN,
Unit
Defendants-Appellees
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 2:13-CV-27
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DENNIS, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
Joseph Oye Oguntodu, Texas prisoner # 1728590, appeals the dismissal
of his pro se, in forma pauperis (IFP) 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit alleging that the
defendants violated his Eighth Amendment rights.
The district court
dismissed Oguntodu’s complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief
could be granted. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2), 1915A; 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(c).
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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.
*
Case: 13-11099
Document: 00512625071
Page: 2
Date Filed: 05/09/2014
No. 13-11099
Oguntodu also filed a notice of appeal from the district court’s denial of his
postjudgment motion filed pursuant to Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.
We normally review the dismissal of a civil rights complaint for failure
to state a claim de novo, using the same standard applicable to dismissals
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). See Rogers v. Boatright, 709
F.3d 403, 407 (5th Cir. 2013); Geiger v. Jowers, 404 F.3d 371, 373 (5th Cir.
2005). “Under that standard, a complaint fails to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted when it does not contain sufficient factual matter,
accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Rogers,
709 F.3d at 407 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). In this case,
however, since Oguntodu did not object to the magistrate judge’s report and
recommendation, which was adopted by the district court, our review is only
for plain error. See Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 142829 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc).
To the extent that Oguntodu claims that the defendants inadequately
treated him with respect to his diabetic condition and his requests for diabetic
supplies, his disagreements with his medical treatment and his allegations of
negligence and unprofessional behavior do not state valid claims of deliberate
indifference to his serious medical needs. See Norton v. Dimazana, 122 F.3d
286, 292 (5th Cir. 1997); Varnado v. Lynaugh, 920 F.2d 320, 321 (5th Cir.
1991). Nor did Oguntodu allege facts giving rise to a valid Eighth Amendment
claim in connection with the collection of a $100 copayment for health care
services. See Morris v. Livingston, 739 F.3d 740, 748-49 (5th Cir. 2014). We
do not consider Oguntodu’s argument, raised for the first time on appeal, that
prison security staff denied him access to medical care.
See Leverette v.
Louisville Ladder Co., 183 F.3d 339, 342 (5th Cir. 1999). Finally, by failing to
2
Case: 13-11099
Document: 00512625071
Page: 3
Date Filed: 05/09/2014
No. 13-11099
address the basis for the district court’s denial of his Rule 59(e) motion,
Oguntodu has abandoned any challenge to that denial. See Brinkmann v.
Dallas Cnty. Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987).
Oguntodu’s appeal is without arguable merit and is dismissed as
frivolous. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983); 5TH CIR.
R. 42.2. The dismissal of this appeal as frivolous and the district court’s
dismissal of Oguntodu’s complaint for failure to state a claim each count as a
strike for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d
383, 387-88 (5th Cir. 1996). We caution Oguntodu that once he accumulates
three strikes, he may not proceed IFP in any civil action or appeal filed while
he is incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he is under imminent
danger of serious physical injury. See § 1915(g).
APPEAL DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS; SANCTION WARNING
ISSUED.
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?