Adams v. Keszler

* 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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
February 19, 2004
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-50849
Summary Calendar
ERIC ADAMS,
Plaintiff-Appellee-Cross-
Appellant,
versus
BERNEY KESZLER, Dr.; ET AL.,
Defendants,
BERNEY KESZLER, Dr.,
Defendant-Appellant-Cross-
Appellee.
--------------------
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. SA-99-CV-86
--------------------
Before BARKSDALE, EMILIO M. GARZA, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Dr. Berney Keszler appeals the jury verdict for the plaintiff,
Eric Adams, and the district court’s denial of his FED. R. CIV. P.
50 motion for judgment as a matter of law and/or for new trial.
Adams, Texas prisoner # 626162, cross appeals.

-- 1 of 3 --

No. 02-50849
-2-
Dr. Keszler argues that Adams failed to produce substantial
evidence that he suffered from a serious medical need requiring
work restrictions or surgery. Dr. Keszler argues that Adams failed
to produce any evidence that the delay in receiving surgery or
removal of work restrictions resulted in substantial harm. Dr.
Keszler argues that Adams has failed to provide sufficient evidence
to overcome his entitlement to qualified immunity. He contends
that Adams’ testimony regarding his swollen knee is the only
evidence of any injury and is insufficient to put him on notice
that he violated Adams’ constitutional rights.
Adams, on cross-appeal, argues that the district court erred
in denying him de novo review of the magistrate judge’s report
dismissing his claims against other defendants. Adams argues that
the district court abused its discretion in refusing to take
judicial notice of the relevant facts and documentary evidence that
had recently been disclosed to him concerning another lawsuit
against Dr. Keszler. Adams argues that he was prejudiced by the
district court’s jury instructions on his retaliation claims and by
the district court’s refusal to allow the jury to consider his
grievances, complaints, and other documents. He contends that the
district court failed to properly articulate his retaliation
allegations in full. Adams argues that he was prejudiced by the
trial court’s decision not to conduct an “unclean hands” hearing.
We have reviewed the entire record on appeal and have
considered the law as set forth in the appellate briefs and on the

-- 2 of 3 --

No. 02-50849
-3-
basis of our independent research as well. As a result, we are
satisfied that, given the jury’s role in determining the
credibility of witnesses and the finding of facts, there is
sufficient evidence to support the jury’s verdict in favor of the
plaintiff and against Dr. Keszler.
As we discern no reversible error in the rulings of the
district court and find sufficient evidence supporting the jury
verdict and the judgment based thereon, the judgment is, in all
respects, AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --