UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-41077
Summary Calendar
RALPH WESLEY ROGERS, SR.,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
W.H. PALOT, Lieutenant; DAVID A. TUCK;
RODRIGUES, Sergeant; GARY JOHNSON,
Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice,
Institutional Division,
Defendants-Appellees.
* * * * *
RALPH WESLEY ROGERS, SR.,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
TIMOTHY A. GIBBONS, M.D.;
G.L. BERRY, M.D.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
For the Southern District of Texas
(G-93-CV-59 & G-93-CV-613)
July 7, 1997
Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, HIGGINBOTHAM and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Ralph Wesley Rogers, Sr. (#493394), a state prisoner, appeals the district
court’s dismissal of his civil rights action as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B)(i). Rogers contends that he was denied access to the courts because
prison guards interfered with the mailing of legal documents pertaining to case
number G-91-25, another 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action filed by Rogers against a prison
guard for physical assault. “A denial-of-access-to-the-courts claim is not valid if a
litigant’s position is not prejudiced by the alleged violation.”1 Although the district
court originally dismissed case number G-91-25, Rogers concedes that the case was
reinstated. Accordingly, Rogers has not been prejudiced by the alleged interference
with his mail and his contention is without merit.2
Rogers also contends that Doctors Berry and Gibbons acted with deliberate
indifference in changing his work restrictions so that he was eligible for assignment
to field work. Unsuccessful medical treatment, negligence, neglect, or medical
*
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should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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.
1
Henthorn v. Swinson, 955 F.2d 351, 354 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 504 U.S.
988 (1992).
2
Rogers also alleged interference with his mail in another action, case
number 90-G-342, but he does not raise that issue on appeal.
2
malpractice is insufficient to give rise to a section 1983 cause of action.3 Rogers’
mere disagreement with the doctors’ decision to change his work restrictions does
not establish a constitutional claim.
The district court’s dismissal is affirmed.
3
Varnado v. Lynaugh, 920 F.2d 320 (5th Cir. 1991).
3