From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Alegria v. Pearson

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit
Jan 16, 2007
214 F. App'x 407 (5th Cir. 2007)

Opinion

No. 06-20347 Summary Calendar.

January 16, 2007.

Anthony Alegria, Richmond, TX, pro se.

Kimberly L. Fuchs, Office of the Attorney General, Austin, TX, for Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, USDC No. 4:05-CV-2837.

Before REAVLEY, WIENER and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.


Anthony Alegria, Texas inmate # 932939, appeals from the summary judgment dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. Alegria argues that the defendants acted with deliberate indifference to his medical needs by disregarding the treatment recommendations of pain specialists that he be prescribed Darvocet on a long-term basis and that the district court lacked jurisdiction to entertain his claims.

Prison officials violate the constitutional prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment when they demonstrate deliberate indifference to a prisoner's serious medical needs. Wilson v. Setter, 501 U.S. 294, 297, 111 S.Ct. 2321, 115 L.Ed.2d 271 (1991). We reject Alegria's contention that the district court has insufficient medical documentation before it to render judgment, and we hold that the evidence supports a determination that the decision whether to administer Darvocet was a medical judgment as opposed to deliberate indifference to his pain. Alegria's claim is a disagreement over the type of care he received, which, under the facts of his case, is not actionable under § 1983. See Banuelos v. McFarland, 41 F.3d 232, 235 (5th Cir. 1995).

Alegria's jurisdictional argument fails because it is premised on his erroneous belief that the District Court for the Eastern District of Texas's order severing and transferring his claims against the instant defendants to the District Court for the Southern District of Texas was immediately appealable under the collateral order doctrine. As we previously held, such orders are not immediately appealable. Harvey Specialty Supply, Inc. v. Anson Flowline Equip. Inc., 434 F.3d 320, 325 (5th Cir. 2005); see Alegria v. Adams, 204 Fed.Appx. 375 (5th Cir. 2006) (unpublished). Alegria does not argue the merits of the issue whether the transfer was appropriate, and he has therefore waived its review. Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993).

AFFIRMED.


Summaries of

Alegria v. Pearson

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit
Jan 16, 2007
214 F. App'x 407 (5th Cir. 2007)
Case details for

Alegria v. Pearson

Case Details

Full title:Anthony ALEGRIA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Katerine PEARSON; Bobby Vincent…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit

Date published: Jan 16, 2007

Citations

214 F. App'x 407 (5th Cir. 2007)

Citing Cases

Wesley v. Bowie Cnty.

Dr. Shah ordered antibiotics, blood tests, X-rays, and pain medication for Wesley. The fact Dr. Shah ordered…