Baines v. McKinney, et al

* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be
published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-20356
Summary Calendar
ANTHONY GARY BAINES,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
ROCHELLE MCKINNEY; DR. DAO; M.W. MOORE;
JOE FERNALD, Warden; JOY BLACK;
GLENDA ADAMS, DR.; MARY ADAMS,
Defendants-Appellees.
____________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. H-95-CV-4122
____________________________________
February 2, 2000
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DeMOSS and STEWART, Circuit Judges:
PER CURIAM:*
Anthony Gary Baines appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of
the defendants-appellees.
Baines argues that the district court erred by viewing the summary judgment evidence in
the light most favorable to the movants and by granting summary judgment before allowing
Baines to complete discovery. Baines also argues that the district court erred in denying him
leave to amend his complaint.
We have reviewed the record and briefs filed by the parties and find that Baines has

-- 1 of 2 --

essentially asserted medical malpractice claims which are insufficient to give rise to a § 1983 cause
of action. Varnado v. Lynaugh, 920 F.2d 320, 321 (5th Cir. 1991). Because summary
judgment was properly granted, we agree with the district court that Baines’ proposed
amendment would have be futile. See Ashe v. Corley, 992 F.2d 540, 542 (5th Cir. 1993).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --