Antwon Parker v. David Fortner, et al, No. 12-40390 (5th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 12-40390 Document: 00512122101 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/23/2013 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED No. 12-40390 Summary Calendar January 23, 2013 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk ANTWON PARKER, Plaintiff-Appellant v. DAVID FORTNER; FNU SCRUGGS; JEANIE ALLISON; DR. FNU HANLEY; CECIL HASTY; AMY JONES; PATRICK COOPER; NEAL WEB; MICHAEL SIZEMORE, Defendants-Appellees Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 6:10-CV-296 Before BENAVIDES, HAYNES, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Antwon Parker, Texas prisoner # 1311517, appeals the summary judgment dismissing his claims of deliberate indifference to medical needs, retaliation, and discrimination. We have reviewed the record, including Parker s submissions in opposition to summary judgment, and we conclude that he has not shown any genuine dispute as to any material fact concerning whether the defendants * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 12-40390 Document: 00512122101 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/23/2013 No. 12-40390 showed deliberate indifference to his medical needs. See FED. R. CIV. P. 56(a); Duffie v. United States, 600 F.3d 362, 371 (5th Cir. 2010); Lawson v. Dallas County, 286 F.3d 257, 262 (5th Cir. 2002). The record is replete with uncontested evidence of Parker s medical care showing that Parker s contentions concern only his disagreement and dissatisfaction with the diagnosis and treatment of his medical problems. See Sama v. Hannigan, 669 F.3d 585, 590 (5th Cir. 2012); Banuelos v. McFarland, 41 F.3d 232, 235 (5th Cir. 1995). Accordingly, he has not made the showing necessary to defeat summary judgment on his claims of deliberate indifference to his medical needs. See Duffie, 600 F.3d at 371. Parker s claims that defendant Cecil Hasty showed deliberate indifference to his medical condition by assigning him to jobs beyond his medical restrictions likewise fail. Parker has failed to show that there is a genuinely contested factual issue as to whether Hasty ignored any restriction of which he had actual knowledge. See Lawson, 286 F.3d at 262-63. Concerning retaliation, Parker merely reiterates his prior allegations of defendant wrong-doing and fails to identify any genuine factual issue that would suggest a retaliatory motivation by any defendant. See Woods v. Smith, 60 F.3d 1161, 1164-66 (5th Cir. 1995). Parker also contends that Hasty discriminated against him on racial grounds in the distribution of kitchen job assignments. Parker asserts merely that Hasty temporarily assigned to a white prisoner the shift that Parker had been working and that there was no rational basis for doing so. Hasty testified by affidavit that work was assigned on the basis of practical factors and that Parker s assignment was not based on race. In response, Parker failed to identify any genuine factual dispute material to the essential issue of discriminatory intent. See Adkins v. Kaspar, 393 F.3d 559, 566 (5th Cir. 2004) (rejecting prison discrimination claim based on bald, unsupported, conclusional allegations ); Woods v. Edwards, 51 F.3d 577, 580 (5th Cir. 1995). 2 Case: 12-40390 Document: 00512122101 Page: 3 Date Filed: 01/23/2013 No. 12-40390 Parker makes vague and speculative claims for additional discovery. He fails to show that the district court abused its discretion by denying additional discovery. See Raby v. Livingston, 600 F.3d 552, 561 (5th Cir. 2010); International Shortstop, Inc. v. Rally s, Inc., 939 F.2d 1257, 1267 (5th Cir. 1991). Parker likewise fails to a show that the district court abused its discretion by declining to appoint counsel. See McFaul v. Valenzuela, 684 F.3d 564, 581 (5th Cir. 2012). Parker was able to present his claims vigorously and coherently. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
