eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 Federal Courts
 US Court of Appeals Cases
 Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
 2021-10

Williams v. Reilley ( 2021 )


Menu:
 
  • Case: 20-40310     Document: 00516050522         Page: 1     Date Filed: 10/12/2021
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit                               United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
October 12, 2021
No. 20-40310
Summary Calendar                         Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Billy Jerome Williams,
Plaintiff—Appellant,
versus
Paul Reilley; April Persinger; Helen Parker, LVN,
Defendants—Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 9:18-CV-195
Before Wiener, Dennis, and Haynes, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Billy Jerome Williams appeals the dismissal of his civil rights action
asserting that the defendants were deliberately indifferent to his medical
needs in violation of his Eighth Amendment rights. The district court
dismissed his complaint for failure to state a claim, pursuant to Federal Rule
*
Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Case: 20-40310      Document: 00516050522           Page: 2     Date Filed: 10/12/2021
No. 20-40310
of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). We review the district court’s dismissal de novo.
Sw. Bell Tel., LP v. City of Houston,
    529 F.3d 257
    , 260 (5th Cir. 2008).
On appeal, Williams makes no argument challenging the district
court’s determination that his claims against the defendants fail to state a
claim of deliberate indifference. Accordingly, he has abandoned any such
challenge. See Yohey v. Collins,
    985 F.2d 222
    , 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993); see also
Brinkmann v. Dallas Cnty. Deputy Sheriff Abner,
    813 F.2d 744
    , 748 (5th Cir.
1987). Additionally, to the extent Williams contends that the defendants
should be held accountable for their negligence, negligent acts or
disagreements with the medical treatment received do not rise to the level of
deliberate indifference. Gobert v. Caldwell,
    463 F.3d 339
    , 346 (5th Cir. 2006).
Accordingly, the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.
Williams’s motions for the appointment of counsel are DENIED. See Ulmer
v. Chancellor,
    691 F.2d 209
    , 212-13 (5th Cir. 1982).
The district court’s dismissal of Williams’s complaint for failure to
state a claim counts as a strike under
    28 U.S.C. § 1915
    (g). See Coleman v.
Tollefson,
    575 U.S. 532
    , 537-40 (2015). Williams is WARNED that, if he
accumulates three strikes, he may not proceed in forma pauperis in any civil
action or appeal filed while he is incarcerated or detained in any facility unless
he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. See § 1915(g).
2