The opinion
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT June 4, 2004
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 03-51107
Summary Calendar
SHERMAN D. WILSON,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
CORRECTIONAL OFFICER III A. TAYLOR,
Travis Unit,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. A-02-CV-790-JN
Before GARWOOD, DEMOSS and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Sherman D. Wilson, a former Texas prisoner, appeals the
district court’s order granting the defendant Officer Adrian
Taylor’s motion for summary judgment, based on the qualified-
immunity doctrine, in this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights action.
In his pro se complaint, Wilson alleged that on November 9,
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under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.
2002, Officer Taylor, who apparently is more than seven feet tall
and weighs more than 300 pounds, violated his Eighth Amendment
rights by “body slamming” him to a concrete floor and punching him
in the face. This use of force followed a dispute between Wilson
and Taylor concerning an overflowing toilet in Wilson’s cellblock.
The parties disputed whether Wilson threatened Taylor prior to the
use of force, or whether Taylor had threatened Wilson.
The district court did not err in granting summary judgment to
defendant Taylor on this claim on the basis of qualified immunity
because Wilson failed to submit summary judgment evidence showing
that he had suffered a more than de minimus physical injury as a
result of the November 9, 2002 incident (or that Taylor’s
employment of force was such as to be “repugnant to the conscience
of mankind”). See Gomez v. Chandler, 163 F.3d 921, 924 (5th Cir.
1999); Siglar v. Hightower, 112 F.3d 191, 193 (5th Cir. 1997).
Therefore, the summary judgment evidence before the district court
does not suffice to establish the violation of a constitutional
right and Taylor is entitled to qualified immunity. Price v.
Roark, 256 F.3d 364, 369 (5th Cir. 2001).
The judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED.
2