Swift v. Huffman, 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
November 18, 2003
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-60270
Summary Calendar
ANTHONY SWIFT,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
LADDIE HUFFMAN, Sheriff; BILLY PERKINS, Jail Administrator;
BOBBIE RANDLE, Jailor,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 1:01-CV-375-B
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Anthony Swift, Mississippi prisoner # 75278, appeals the
judgment for the defendants following an evidentiary hearing on his
42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint challenging the conditions of his
confinement at the Clay County jail. Swift alleges in his lawsuit
that his Eighth Amendment rights were violated because he was
housed in a screening cell for two weeks without bedding or a

-- 1 of 2 --

1See Palmer v. Johnson, 193 F.3d 346, 352 (5th Cir. 1999).
2
pillow while jail officials investigated alleged misconduct by
Swift. He claims that the denial of bedding material amounted to
a denial of basic human needs, and he claims to have suffered back
and hip injuries as a result. The district court rejected his
arguments.
We find no error in the district court’s conclusion. The
record supports the district court’s determination that the
deprivation was not sufficiently serious and the Clay County
jailers were not sufficiently culpable to violate the Eighth
Amendment.1 Swift was housed in the screening cell only as long as
necessary to investigate the allegations made against him and to
secure the availability of alternative housing. The evidence also
indicates that his back injury did not manifest itself for many
months after his confinement in the screening cell.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --