
    Deon Silven WESBER, Plaintiff—Appellant v. Dr. LAVELLE; Dr. Adames; Gary L. Messer; Lieutenant Israel L. Reyna; Sergeant Tommy L. Chisum, Defendants—Appellees.
    No. 09-10016.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Feb. 8, 2010.
    Deon Silven Wesber, Dalhart, TX, pro se.
    Before JOLLY and DENNIS, Circuit Judges, and BOYLE, District Judge.
    
    
      
       District Judge of the Northern District of Texas, sitting by designation.
    
   PER CURIAM:

We affirm the district court’s dismissal of the claims against Doctors Lavelle and Adames. We vacate and remand for a Spears hearing with respect to the claims against Messer, Reyna, and Chisum to allow the plaintiff to provide the factual details to determine whether he asserts a viable claim under Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 114 S.Ct. 1970, 128 L.Ed.2d 811 (1994), and its progeny. At the Spears hearing, the plaintiff shall detail all the medical evidence that supports his claim of disability, the specific work assignments that he performed that injured his back, the nature of such injuries and how they occurred, who made such work assignments, and the specific evidence of exactly what each defendant knew about the plaintiffs disability, how each defendant knew of the disability, and all other subjective knowledge of each defendant concerning the “hoe field squad” work assignment that shows deliberate indifference by such defendant to Wesber’s serious medical requirements. The district court shall thereafter issue such orders or conduct such further proceedings as are, in its judgment, necessary and appropriate. For any appellate review of this court, a notice of appeal must be filed from the final judgment of the district court.

AFFIRMED in part; VACATED in part; and REMANDED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     
      
      . Spears v. McCotter, 766 F.2d 179 (5th Cir.1985).
     