UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FIFTH CIRCUIT
_________________
No. 98-30576
Summary Calendar
_________________
RAY JETER,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
MICHAEL L. PHILLIPS, Warden; SUSAN BARBO, RN;
MOORE, Captain; CONN, RN; COLEMAN, LPN; CARLO
WILLIAM, Lieutenant,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
(98-CV-503)
December 15, 1998
Before EMILIO M. GARZA, DeMOSS, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Ray Jeter, Louisiana prisoner # 153917, appeals the dismissal
of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e). He alleges that he received inadequate medical
treatment, that Barbo made a false report about him, that Williams
failed to list witnesses in a disciplinary report, that Moore
denied him the opportunity to call witnesses at a disciplinary
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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.
hearing and that he was denied medical treatment during the time he
was in isolation/disciplinary detention as punishment for a
disciplinary violation. We review the dismissal of claims as
frivolous for abuse of discretion. See Reeves v. Collins, 27 F.3d
174, 176 (5th Cir. 1994).
As to the allegations of inadequate medical treatment, the
record demonstrates that the medical care Jeter received was not in
violation of the Eighth Amendment. See id. (applying deliberate
indifference standard to Eighth Amendment claim alleging inadequate
medical care). That the care was unsuccessful or perhaps even
negligent or that Jeter disagreed with his treatment is not
cognizable under § 1983 as a matter of law. See Norton v.
Dimazana, 122 F.3d 286, 292 (5th Cir. 1997); Varnado v. Lynaugh,
920 F.2d 320, 321 (5th Cir. 1991).
As to the other allegations, Jeter has not identified a
liberty interest protected by the Due Process Clause. See Sandin
v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 477-78, 115 S. Ct. 2293, 2297, 132 L. Ed.
2d 418, ___ (1995). The sanction of twenty days of
isolation/disciplinary detention, which lies at the root of the
remaining charges, does not reflect the type of atypical,
significant deprivation in which a state might create a liberty
interest. It reflects only a change in the condition of
confinement. See Madison v. Parker, 104 F.3d 765, 767-68 (5th Cir.
1997) (holding that thirty days of cell restriction fails to
implicate due process concerns).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing
-2-
Jeter’s claims as frivolous. Therefore, we AFFIRM. Jeter’s motion
for production of documents is DENIED.
-3-