Ramirez v. Duteil ( 2002 )

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-11196
Conference Calendar
ENRIQUE RAMIREZ,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
W. R. DUTEIL; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 3:99-CV-2589-P
--------------------
June 18, 2002
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Enrique Ramirez appeals the summary judgment entered in
defendants' favor on his complaint for damages filed pursuant to
the Federal Tort Claims Act ("FTCA") and Bivens v. Six Unknown
Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971).
Ramirez's complaint stemmed from injuries he suffered in a work-
related accident while he was incarcerated at the Seagoville
Federal Correctional Institution. Ramirez was compensated for
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
No. 01-11196
-2-
his injuries pursuant to the Inmate Accident Compensation Act
("IACA"), 18 U.S.C. § 4126. His complaint asserted that he was
entitled to damages under the FTCA on account of the medical
treatment he received from prison physicians which allegedly
caused him unnecessary pain and necessitated further surgery.
He asserted that the medical treatment amounted to deliberate
indifference to his serious medical needs, in violation of the
Eighth Amendment.
Ramirez has moved for the appointment of appellate counsel.
That motion is DENIED. See Ulmer v. Chancellor, 691 F.2d 209,
212 (5th Cir. 1982).
The district court did not err in granting summary judgment
on Ramirez's FTCA claim because the cause of his injury was work-
related and compensable exclusively under the IACA. Thompson v.
United States, 495 F.2d 192, 192-93 (5th Cir. 1974).
The district court did not err in granting summary judgment
on Ramirez's Eighth Amendment claim because Ramirez adduced no
evidence clearly evincing that his medical treatment amounted to
an unnecessary or wanton infliction of pain. See Estelle v.
Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976); Johnson v. Treen, 759 F.2d 1236,
1238 (5th Cir. 1985). Neither Ramirez's dissatisfaction with his
medical treatment nor the fact that he underwent additional
surgery after his release from prison give rise to a claim for an
Eighth Amendment violation. See Varnado v. Lynaugh, 920 F.2d
320, 321 (5th Cir. 1991).
AFFIRMED.