Cleveland v. Thaler, 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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. 02-21001
Summary Calendar
GEORGE A. CLEVELAND,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
RICHARD C. THALER; TERRY L. PICKETT,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. H-01-CV-3567
--------------------
March 17, 2003
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
George Cleveland appeals a summary judgment dismissing his
42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. Cleveland argues, as he did in the

-- 1 of 3 --

No. 02-21001
-2-
district court, that he has folliculitis barbae (a condition
causing ingrown hair on the face and neck, which is aggravated by
shaving), that he had been issued a medical pass allowing him not
to shave and to maintain a ¼-inch beard, and that defendants were
responsible for forcing him to shave on occasions, for verbally
harassing him for not shaving, for falsely disciplining him for not
shaving, and for refusing to increase his prison classification
level based on his having a beard.
Our de novo review reveals that Cleveland’s condition and
shaving with his condition did not pose a serious risk of injury
such that prison officers’ forcing him to shave on occasions or
interfering with his medical pass allowing him to maintain a ¼-inch
inch beard supported a claim of deliberate indifference. See Var-
nado v. Lynaugh, 920 F.2d 320, 321 (5th Cir. 1991); Harris v.
Hegmann, 198 F.3d 153, 159 (5th Cir. 1999); see also Shabazz v.
Barnauskas, 790 F.2d 1536, 1538 (11th Cir. 1986).
Consequently, Cleveland’s claims that prison officers verbally
harassed, stated racial slurs, threatened disciplinary action,
falsely disciplined him, and refused to promote his classification
level based on his refusal to shave do not give rise to a deliber-
ate indifference claim. Nor do such actions, by themselves, give
rise to constitutional violations. See Siglar v. Hightower, 112
F.3d 191, 193 (5th Cir. 1997); Williams v. Bramer, 180 F.3d 699,
705-06 (5th Cir.), clarified on other grounds, 186 F.3d 633 (5th
Cir. 1999); Madison v. Parker, 104 F.3d 765, 768 (5th Cir. 1997);

-- 2 of 3 --

No. 02-21001
-3-
Shabazz v. Barnauskas, 790 F.2d 1536, 1538 (11th Cir. 1986); Moody
v. Baker, 857 F.2d 256, 257-58 (5th Cir. 1988).
Cleveland has not shown that there is a genuine issue of mate-
rial fact which respect to his § 1983 claims. See FED. R. CIV. P.
56(c); Little v. Liquid Air Corp., 37 F.3d 1069, 1075-76 (5th Cir.
1994) (en banc). The summary judgment is AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --