The opinion
Case: 22-10447 Document: 156-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/30/2024
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
____________
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 22-10447
Summary Calendar FILED
____________ May 30, 2024
Lyle W. Cayce
Thomas Sawyer, Clerk
Plaintiff—Appellant,
versus
Caryn Die; Tammy Messimer; Daniel A. Lakin;
Ruben Sapin; Marcia Odal; Pepper Bradberry,
Defendants—Appellees.
______________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 7:15-CV-92
______________________________
Before Smith, Higginson, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam: *
Thomas Sawyer, Texas prisoner #579557, appeals the dismissal of his
42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit after the district court had granted summary judgment.
Sawyer alleged that the defendants were deliberately indifferent to his serious
medical needs and used excessive force because they continued to back-cuff
him despite being aware that he had an injury that caused his shoulder to
_____________________
*
This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-10447 Document: 156-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/30/2024
No. 22-10447
dislocate when he was restrained in that manner. On appeal, Sawyer main-
tains that the court erred in denying him leave to proceed IFP on appeal and
in granting summary judgment.
Sawyer also avers that the district court violated his due process and
equal protection rights and his right to access to the courts because it in-
cluded a racial designator, BL, in the caption of his case; erred in dismissing
any new claims that were unrelated to his allegation that he was in imminent
danger because guards used excessive force in back-cuffing him; abused its
discretion in severing his claims; abused its discretion in not concluding that
28 U.S.C. § 1915’s three-strikes provision is unconstitutional; abused its dis-
cretion by rejecting his second amended complaint; improperly denied him
access to the courts; violated his Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment due pro-
cess rights by dismissing some parties to the suit; and abused its discretion
by refusing to grant various motions for a temporary restraining order or an
injunction.
Sawyer’s notice of appeal does not mention these rulings or evince an
intent to appeal them. See In re Hinsley, 201 F.3d 638, 641 (5th Cir. 2000).
Moreover, requiring the defendants to address these issues would be unduly
prejudicial. Id. Accordingly, we lack jurisdiction to consider them, given that
they are outside the scope of Sawyer’s appeal. Id.
To the extent that Sawyer is challenging the denials of his IFP mo-
tions, he presented the same or substantially similar arguments in his IFP
motion before this court. Because this court has already denied Sawyer’s IFP
motion and because he has paid the filing fee, we need not readdress these
issues. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997).
We review a summary judgment de novo. McFaul v. Valenzuela,
684 F.3d 564, 571 (5th Cir. 2012). Regarding his deliberate-indifference
claims, Sawyer did not allege facts that establish that defendants Marcia
2
Case: 22-10447 Document: 156-1 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/30/2024
No. 22-10447
Odal, M.D., and Pepper Bradberry, a nurse, “refused to treat him, ignored
his complaints, intentionally treated him incorrectly, or engaged in any simi-
lar conduct that would clearly evince a wanton disregard for any serious med-
ical needs.” Domino v. Tex. Dep’t of Crim. Justice, 239 F.3d 752, 756 (5th Cir.
2001) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Sawyer’s mere dis-
agreement with the course of his medical treatment and his insistence that he
should have received further treatment in the form of the issuance of a
handcuff-modification pass are not sufficient to support a claim of deliberate
indifference. See Gobert v. Caldwell, 463 F.3d 339, 346 (5th Cir. 2006); Dom-
ino, 239 F.3d at 756.
Regarding his excessive-force claim, Sawyer did not allege facts that
establish that defendants Tammy Messimer, Caryn Die, Ruben Sapin, and
Daniel Lakin, correctional officers, applied malicious and sadistic force with
the intent to cause harm rather than in a good-faith effort to maintain disci-
pline. See Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 6–7 (1992). Moreover, Sawyer
does not allege facts that demonstrate that the district court erred in con-
cluding that the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity because he
had not demonstrated that they violated a clearly established constitutional
right. See Morgan v. Swanson, 659 F.3d 359, 371 (5th Cir. 2011) (en banc)
The judgment is AFFIRMED. Sawyer’s motions for a temporary
injunction pending appeal and appointment of counsel are DENIED.
3