Patrick Jackson v. UTMB, et al


UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [16-20449 Affirmed ] Judge: PEH , Judge: EHJ , Judge: JEG Mandate issue date is 12/27/2017; denying motion to appoint counsel filed by Appellant Mr. Patrick O'Neal Jackson [8532813-2] [16-20449]

Download PDF
Case: 16-20449 Document: 00514261314 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/05/2017 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 16-20449 United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED December 5, 2017 PATRICK O'NEAL JACKSON, Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Plaintiff - Appellant v. UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS MEDICAL BRANCH; J. CHAVERS, Director of Operations; R. NOLAND, SPM UTMB, Defendants - Appellees Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4:15-CV-3763 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Patrick O’Neal Jackson, Texas prisoner # 01861878, filed this civil rights action alleging that his Eighth Amendment rights have been violated by delays in treatment for a fungal infection. He alleges the delays in treatment occurred between June and December 2015. He alleges these delays caused him pain and suffering due to itching, swelling, and bleeding of the infected area. 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 16-20449 Document: 00514261314 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/05/2017 No. 16-20449 Jackson also alleges that none of the treatments he’s received have been effective. He admits to being seen and treated for this problem three times in the June to December timeframe. The district court dismissed Jackson’s complaint because it found it was frivolous and failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Therefore, this court reviews the dismissal de novo. Coleman v. Lincoln Parish Detention Center, 858 F.3d 307, 308-09 (5th Cir. 2017). This court has carefully considered this appeal in light of Appellant’s brief and pertinent portions of the record. Having done so, we find no error in the district court’s dismissal. The district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED for essentially the same reasons articulated by that court. Jackson’s motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED. 2

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?