Summary Calendar ADAM DAVID HYATT v. Cluster Dental Director Edwin Sewell

* 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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
September 7, 2006
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-41281
Summary Calendar
ADAM DAVID HYATT
Plaintiff - Appellant
v.
CLUSTER DENTAL DIRECTOR EDWIN SEWELL
Defendant - Appellee
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texs
USDC No. 5:04-CV-106
--------------------
Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM and GARZA, Circuit Judges.*
PER CURIAM:
Adam David Hyatt, Texas prisoner # 776998, appeals the
district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Drs. Edwin
Sewell and Sammy Wood and the University of Texas Medical Branch
(UTMB). We affirm the judgment of the district court.
We review de novo the district court’s grant of summary
judgment de novo. Cousin v. Small, 325 F.3d 627, 637 (5th Cir.
2003). Summary judgment is proper "if the pleadings,
depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file,

-- 1 of 2 --

together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no
genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party
is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." FED. R. CIV.
P. 56(c). Prison officials violate the constitutional
prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment when they
demonstrate deliberate indifference to a prisoner’s serious
medical needs, constituting an unnecessary and wanton infliction
of pain. Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 297 (1991).
Hyatt began a treatment plan in December 2002, which
included a recommendation for a lower partial denture. Over the
course of the next three years, Hyatt received a number of
fillings as well as other treatment. Although there were some
delays in his treatment regarding his dentures, the summary
judgment evidence shows that Hyatt was seen regularly, that
treatment was provided, and that any delays were the result of at
most negligence rather than any deliberate indifference to
Hyatt’s serious medical needs.
We further affirm the summary judgment in favor of UTMB; as
a state agency, UTMB is not a person for purposes of § 1983. See
Will v. Mich. Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71 (1989). In
addition, absent any Eighth Amendment violation by any UTMB
personnel, there can be no liability on the part of UTMB.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --