Brock v. Sparkman, 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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
June 16, 2004
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-60890
Summary Calendar
HAROLD BROCK,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
EMMITT SPARKMAN, Warden of Marshall County Correction
Facility; RENEE JOHNSON, Sergeant at Marshall County
Correction Facility, in Her Individual and Official
Capacities; DURETT PEEPLES, Lieutenant at Marshall
County Correction Facility, in His Individual and
Official Capacities,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Mississippi
USDC No. 3:00-CV-148-P
--------------------
Before BARKSDALE, EMILIO M. GARZA, CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Harold Brock, Mississippi prisoner # R5226, appeals the
summary-judgment dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 lawsuit
asserting that prison officials were deliberately indifferent
to his serious medical needs when they placed him, against his
medical restrictions, in a bottom bunk, which caused him to
repeatedly hit his head on the top bunk, resulting in bumps and

-- 1 of 3 --

No. 03-60890
-2-
bruises and loss of vision. “This court reviews the grant of a
summary judgment motion de novo, using the same criteria used by
the district court.” Fraire v. City of Arlington, 957 F.2d 1268,
1273 (5th Cir. 1992).
Summary judgment was proper in this case because the
undisputed evidence shows that Brock did not sustain any injury
resulting from the claimed constitutional violation. See Memphis
Community School Dist. v. Stachura, 477 U.S. 299, 308-09 (1986).
The summary-judgment evidence, including Brock’s own pleadings
and testimony at the Spears hearing, show that his loss of vision
was not caused by any head trauma and that he never required any
medical attention when he bumped his head on the upper bunk.
Brock has thus failed to show any cognizable injury resulting
from the alleged particular act of deliberate indifference, and
his claim fails. See id.
Brock argues that the district court erred in considering
Dr. Richardson’s affidavit for the proposition that his loss
of vision did not result from head trauma because the affidavit
was untimely and because Dr. Richardson was not qualified as an
expert. As noted above, Brock’s own evidence, specifically, the
letter from Dr. Richardson which he attached to his complaint,
contained the same information as Dr. Richardson’s affidavit.
The affidavit was thus duplicative of Brock’s evidence and
the district court’s consideration of it, even if error, was
harmless. Brock’s conclusional allegation that head trauma

-- 2 of 3 --

No. 03-60890
-3-
could equally have caused his loss of vision does not meet his
burden to show a genuine issue of material fact. See Little v.
Liquid Air Corp., 37 F.3d 1069, 1075 (5th Cir. 1994) (en banc).
His reliance on the affidavits he submitted from other inmates
for the proposition that his blindness resulted from head
injuries is misplaced because none of the inmate affidavits so
state.
The district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --