McGraw v. Cain, 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 01-31471
Summary Calendar
ANDREW MCGRAW,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
BURL CAIN; RICHARD L. STALDER; UNKNOWN DIFFATTA, Doctor;
UNKNOWN HANDS, Doctor; UNKNOWN GUTIERREZ; UNKNOWN TARVER;
UNKNOWN DURRETT; UNKNOWN BARNES; JOHN DOE; JOHN DOE; JOHN DOE;
JOHN DOE; PAT TRUETT,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Louisiana
USDC No. 01-CV-725-B
--------------------
May 23, 2002
Before DAVIS, BENAVIDES and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Andrew McGraw, Louisiana prisoner # 295773, appeals the
district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint as
frivolous and for failure to state a claim under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1997e(e) and 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and (ii). McGraw
alleged in the district court and on appeal that he is being
handcuffed with his hands behind his back, that he suffers from

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 01-31471
-2-
various medical conditions, that being handcuffed in such a way
could cause injuries and causes his hands to swell and become
numb, that he once fell and suffered injuries, that the
defendants knew about his medical problems and the problems with
being handcuffed in such a manner but did nothing, and that he is
being handcuffed in such a manner and brutalized as retaliation
for having committed violations of prison policies of which he
was falsely accused.
The injuries McGraw alleged he suffered or might suffer are
de minimis and do not establish a claim for 42 U.S.C. § 1983
relief. See Harper v. Showers, 174 F.3d 716, 719 (5th Cir.
1999); Siglar v. Hightower, 112 F.3d 191, 193 (5th Cir. 1997).
Furthermore, McGraw does not challenge the district court’s
determination that his claims at best alleged only negligence and
not deliberate indifference. McGraw’s claims of retaliation are
conclusory and also do not establish a viable claim for relief.
See Woods v. Edwards, 51 F.3d 577, 580-81 (5th Cir. 1995).
The district court’s dismissal of McGraw’s complaint is
AFFIRMED. His request for the production of documents is DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --