Wooderts v. Talley, 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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
October 12, 2006
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-50424
Summary Calendar
LEVI WOODERTS, JR.,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
SHERI TALLEY, Doctor; JOSEPH CASAL; LANNETTE LINTHICUM,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 4:03-CV-48
--------------------
Before JOLLY, DENNIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Levi Wooderts, Jr., formerly Texas prisoner # 549210 and now
federal prisoner # 29639-077, appeals the district court’s order
granting summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action in favor
of Dr. Sheri Talley and dismissing his claims against Joseph Casal
and Lannette Linthicum for failing to state a claim upon which
relief can be granted. Wooderts has briefed no claim of error with
respect to the dismissal of his claims against Casal and Linthicum.
Any argument of error regarding the dismissal of his claims against

-- 1 of 3 --

No. 05-50424
-2-
those defendants is abandoned. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222,
224-25 (5th Cir. 1993).
Wooderts argues that the district court erred in granting
summary judgment in favor of Talley with respect to his claim that
she was deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs.
Wooderts has failed to show that Talley was deliberately
indifferent however. Absent exceptional circumstances, his
disagreement with her specific courses of treatment is insufficient
to raise a viable claim under § 1983. Banuelos v. McFarland, 41
F.3d 232, 235 (5th Cir. 1995); Varnado v. Lynaugh, 920 F.2d 320,
321 (5th Cir. 1991).
Wooderts also argues that the district court erred by refusing
to conduct a de novo review of the magistrate judge’s report and
recommendation, after he timely filed objections thereto. Wooderts
is correct that his objections were timely filed and that de novo
review was thus triggered. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); FED. R. CIV.
P. 6(a). However, Wooderts has not demonstrated reversible error,
as he has failed to show that he was prejudiced by the lack of de
novo review by the district court. See Kreimerman v. Casa
Veerkamp, S.A., de C.V., 22 F.3d 634, 646-47 (5th Cir. 1994).
Wooderts last argues that the district court erred in denying
his motion to compel discovery. “The district court need not allow
any discovery unless it finds that plaintiff has supported his
claim with sufficient precision and factual specificity to raise a
genuine issue as to the illegality of defendant’s conduct at the

-- 2 of 3 --

No. 05-50424
-3-
time of the alleged acts.” Schultea v. Wood, 47 F.3d 1427, 1434
(5th Cir. 1995) (en banc). Wooderts did not meet that initial
burden; therefore, the district court’s discovery ruling was not an
abuse of discretion. See Gomez v. St. Jude Med. Daig Div. Inc.,
442 F.3d 919, 927 (5th Cir. 2006).
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --