Harvey v. Garber ( 2002 )

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-60967
Summary Calendar
MILAS HARVEY
Plaintiff - Appellant - Cross-Appellee
v.
STEVE GARBER, Hancock County Sheriff; GERALD NECAISE,
Hancock County Jail Warden; DAVID JOHNSON, Hancock
County Deputy Sheriff Sergeant
Defendants - Appellees
MARK A MCFARLAND, Doctor of Dental Medicine
Defendant - Appellee - Cross-Appellant
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Mississippi
USDC No. 1:00-CV-270-Br-R
--------------------
August 16, 2002
Before KING, Chief Judge, and WIENER and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Milas Harvey appeals the summary-judgment dismissal of his
42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. In his complaint, he alleged that
the defendants were deliberately indifferent to his serious
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 01-60967
-2-
medical needs by failing to provide prompt and proper dental
care.
We have reviewed the record and the briefs on appeal and
conclude that the district court did not err in granting summary
judgment in favor of the appellees. Guillory v. Domtar Indus.,
Inc., 95 F.3d 1320, 1326 (5th Cir. 1996). A review of the record
revels that Harvey’s claims amounted to, at the most, claims of
negligence and medical malpractice which do not give rise to a 28
U.S.C. § 1983 cause of action. Varnado v. Lynaugh, 920 F.2d 320,
321 (5th Cir. 1991).
McFarland, in his cross-appeal, avers that the district
court erred in dismissing Harvey’s pendant state law claims
without prejudice. Because the district court properly dismissed
all of the claims that provided it with original jurisdiction in
the case, the dismissal without prejudice of the supplemental
state law claims was not an abuse of discretion under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1367. See Batiste v. Island Records, Inc., 179 F.3d 217, 226
(5th Cir. 1999); 28 U.S.C. § 1367. Given the foregoing, the
judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.