Cotton v. Ryan, et al

* 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
January 6, 2005
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-10397
Summary Calendar
NORMAN COTTON,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
PHIL RYAN, Sheriff, Wise County Jail,
in his individual and official capacity;
KENNETH STEEL, Deputy, Wise County Jail,
in his individual and official capacity,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:03-CV-583-A
--------------------
Before DAVIS, SMITH, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Norman Cotton, Texas prisoner # 639274, appeals the district
court’s denial of relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. His
motion for appointment of counsel on appeal is DENIED.
Cotton contends that the defendants were deliberately
indifferent to his safety because he was assaulted by other inmates
during his incarceration at the Wise County Jail. He has not
established that the defendants were “aware of facts from which the

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 04-10397
-2-
inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of harm exist[ed]”
prior to the assault. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994).
Cotton also has not established that the defendants were
deliberately indifferent to his medical needs before or after the
assault. He has not established that any delay in treatment
resulted in substantial harm. See Mendoza v. Lynaugh, 989 F.2d
191, 195 (5th Cir. 1993). The medical records belie Cotton’s
claims that he was denied medical care after the assault. The
district court properly considered the medical and jail records in
granting summary judgment in favor of the defendants. See FED. R.
EVID. 803(4), (6); Mersch v. City of Dallas, 207 F.3d 732, 735 (5th
Cir. 2000); Fraire v. City of Arlington, 957 F.2d 1268, 1273 (5th
Cir. 1992).
Cotton also has not established error arising out of the
district court’s failure to hold a hearing on his claims before the
denial of relief. See Eason v. Thaler, 14 F.3d 8, 9 (5th Cir.
1994); Plaisance v. Phelps, 845 F.2d 107, 108 (5th Cir. 1988). The
judgment of the district court is thus AFFIRMED.
AFFIRMED; MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --