United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit

____________ FILED June 23, 2023 No. 22-40663 Lyle W. Cayce ____________ Clerk

George Martinez,

Plaintiff—Appellant,

versus

Nueces County, Texas; Well Path, L.L.C.,

Defendants—Appellees. ______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 2:21-CV-210 ______________________________

Before Smith, Higginson, and Willett, Circuit Judges. Jerry E. Smith, Circuit Judge: George Martinez appeals the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims against Nueces County, Texas, and the denial of leave to amend his § 1983 claims against Wellpath, L.L.C. 1 Finding no error, we affirm.

I. Martinez was incarcerated in the Nueces County Jail in September

_____________________ 1 Wellpath is spelled in a variety of ways throughout the record, but because defendant spells its name as “Wellpath” in its appellate brief, we adopt that spelling. Case: 22-40663 Document: 00516797322 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/23/2023

No. 22-40663

2019. 2 He notified “[d]efendants” 3 that he had severe problems with his foot and had been scheduled for surgery. He alleges that he continued to submit complaints about “the increasingly horrific condition of his foot” and about his medications and antibiotics, but “[d]efendants continually ignored [his complaints] over a significant period of time.” “As a result,” Martinez’s toe “exploded,” and all his toes on that foot were “unnecessarily amputated/removed.” Martinez sued Nueces County and Wellpath for “County/Municipal [L]iability” under § 1983. Specifically, he alleged that the county was liable because it “sanctioned the custom, practice, and/or policy or procedure of failing to protect and/or ignoring the serious medical needs of those entrusted to [its] care.” The original claim was not specific about how Well- path was supposedly liable. The county and Wellpath moved to dismiss. The district court granted both motions but permitted Martinez to file a “Motion for Leave to Amend his Complaint.” Martinez did so and attached a proposed amended complaint, but the judge denied the motion, finding that any amendment would be futile. Martinez timely appeals the dismissal of his claim against Nueces County and the denial of leave to amend as to Wellpath. 4

_____________________ 2 All facts in this section are taken from plaintiff’s live complaint. 3 Martinez does not specify whom, exactly, he notified. His original complaint named as defendants Nueces County, Wellpath, and numerous other individuals who “were all medi[c]al person[nel] working for [Nueces] County and/or [Wellpath].” 4 Martinez eventually agreed to dismiss the individual defendants. He does not appeal his own stipulation of dismissal. It also appears that he does not challenge the denial of leave to amend his claims against Nueces County o