Daniel Kelley v. J. Buscher, 702 F. App'x 236

Plaintiff Daniel Kelley, a prisoner, filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit challenging a disciplinary conviction for escape and conditions during subsequent administrative segregation.
Parties consented to proceed before a magistrate judge, who granted summary judgment for defendants.
Kelley appealed, alleging the magistrate judge failed to rule on various filings, mishandled discovery, and ignored factual disputes; he specifically identified two discovery requests that had been addressed.
Substantive claims included: due process challenges to the disciplinary proceeding and Eighth Amendment conditions-of-confinement claims (denial of out-of-cell recreation for 126 days, daily flooding with human waste, denial of cleaning supplies, and denial of light for over 90 days).
Kelley conceded at an Omnibus Hearing that he was no longer housed where many conditions occurred, did not face a significant risk of future harm, and suffered no injuries from recreation, flooding, or lack of supplies; he alleged eye problems from lack of light and now wears glasses.
The court found no genuine disputes of material fact precluding summary judgment for defendants James Alexander, Simone Jones, and Warden Jerry Buscher and affirmed the dismissal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Magistrate judge failed to rule on filings/discovery	Kelley: judge ignored letters, discovery motions, exhibits, and factual disputes	Defendants: magistrate addressed the two specific discovery requests; remaining complaints are conclusory	Abandoned/conclusory claims; two specific requests were addressed; appeal fails
Due process in disciplinary proceeding	Kelley: disciplinary process inadequate, rights violated	Defendants: Kelley had no protected liberty interest in the challenged punishment	Kelley failed to brief or identify error in the magistrate’s finding of no protected liberty interest; claim abandoned
Conditions — flooding, lack of cleaning supplies, denial of recreation	Kelley: exposure to human waste, denial of supplies and recreation violated constitutional rights and sought damages	Defendants: no continuing injury or risk; lack of involvement by some named defendants; factual concessions undermine claims	Summary judgment appropriate; no genuine dispute of material fact for Jones and Alexander; claims abandoned where not briefed
Conditions — prolonged lack of light	Kelley: cell lacked light >90 days, caused eye problems and injury	Defendants: challenged based on lack of future risk and limited involvement; no evidence tying defendants to deliberate indifference	Summary judgment affirmed for Buscher and others; no genuine dispute preventing judgment as a matter of law

Mapes v. Bishop, 541 F.3d 582 (5th Cir.) (failure to adequately brief claims results in abandonment)
Audler v. CBC Innovis Inc., 519 F.3d 239 (5th Cir.) (conclusory allegations insufficient to preserve claims)
Brinkman v. Dallas Cty. Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744 (5th Cir.) (appellate briefing requirements and issues forfeiture)
Wilkerson v. Goodwin, 774 F.3d 845 (5th Cir.) (liberty-interest and due process analyses in inmate disciplinary contexts)
Coleman v. Sweetin, 745 F.3d 756 (5th Cir.) (summary judgment standards in prisoner conditions cases)
Haverda v. Hays Cty., 723 F.3d 586 (5th Cir.) (deliberate indifference and supervisory liability principles)
Heaney v. Roberts, 846 F.3d 795 (5th Cir.) (supervisory liability and summary judgment)
Hutchins v. McDaniels, 512 F.3d 193 (5th Cir.) (Eighth Amendment conditions claims and requirement of objective/subjective showing)
Bauer v. Texas, 341 F.3d 352 (5th Cir.) (supervisory liability and causation in prison conditions claims)