Essell v. Purdy , 112 F. App'x 326 ( 2004 )

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT October 8, 2004
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 04-40289
Summary Calendar
SAMGODSON ESSELL,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
MICHAEL PURDY, Warden; SMITH, Associate Warden; SANDERSON,
Captain; BOB SWAIN, Lieutenant; JOHN DOE, Safety Manager,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. C-02-CV-204
--------------------
Before GARZA, DeMOSS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Samgodson Essell, federal inmate #95560-012, appeals the
summary judgment dismissal of his complaint brought pursuant to
the Federal Tort Claims Act “FTCA.” Essell alleged that while he
was incarcerated in the Special Housing Unit of Three Rivers,
FCI, the unit frequently flooded with raw sewage. Essell alleged
that the conditions caused him injury, including the development
of high blood pressure for which he must take medication.
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 04-40289
-2-
We review a grant of summary judgment de novo. Clark v.
America’s Favorite Chicken Co., 110 F.3d 295, 296-97 (5th Cir.
1997). “Summary judgment is appropriate when the record reflects
that ‘there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that
the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.’”
Id. at 297 (citation omitted); FED. R. CIV. P. 56(c). Once the
moving party meets its initial burden, the burden shifts to the
nonmoving party “to come forward with competent summary judgment
evidence establishing the existence of a material factual
dispute.” Clark, 110 F.3d at 297. The nonmovant cannot satisfy
his burden by presenting unsupported allegations. Id.The United States met its initial burden of pointing out the
absence of a genuine issue for trial, and the burden shifted to
Essell to come forward with competent summary judgment evidence
to establish that he suffered an injury and that his injury was
caused by the conditions of his confinement. See FED. R. CIV.
P. 56(e); Quijano v. United States, 325 F.3d 564, 567 (5th Cir.
2003); Castillo v. Westwood Furniture, Inc., 25 S.W.3d 858, 862
(Tex. Ct. App. 2000). Essell did not meet his burden; unsworn
documents are not competent summary judgment evidence. See FED.
R. CIV. P. 56(e); Martin v. John W. Stone Oil Dist., 819 F.2d 547,
549 (5th Cir. 1987).
The United States of America is immune from claims for
damages based upon violations of the Eighth Amendment and is not
liable for punitive damages in a tort action. See 28 U.S.C.
No. 04-40289
-3-
§ 2674; Martin v. Miller, 65 F.3d 434, 442 (5th Cir. 1995);
Johnson v. Sawyer, 47 F.3d 716, 727 (5th Cir. 1995) (en banc).
Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.