No. 99-40796
-1-
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-40796
Summary Calendar
MICHAEL LOU GARRETT,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
SUNG LEE; M. SANDERS; ROCHELLE MCKINNEY;
G.J. GOMEZ; D.B. MCELVANEY; J.W. MOSSBARGER,
Warden; J.C. MAYFIELD; R. MUNOZ; LUIS ALBERTO
VASQUEZ; D. VASQUEZ; C.R. PURVIS; In Their
Individual and Official Capacities,
Defendants-Appellees.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. G-97-CV-156
- - - - - - - - - -
April 14, 2000
Before SMITH, BARKSDALE, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Michael Lou Garrett, Texas prisoner # 258594, appeals from
the district court’s summary judgment against him in his claims
against defendant-appellee Sung Lee and from the district court’s
dismissal as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)
of his claims against the other defendants-appellees. We have
reviewed the record and the briefs of the parties, and we
conclude that the district court did not err by granting Lee’s
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
No. 99-40796
-2-
motion for summary judgment and did not abuse its discretion by
dismissing Garrett’s other claims as frivolous. See Melton v.
Teachers Ins. & Annuity Ass’n of America, 114 F.3d 557, 559 (5th
Cir. 1997); Talib v. Gilley, 138 F.3d 211, 213 (5th Cir. 1998).
Garrett’s argument that Dr. Lee was deliberately indifferent
to his serious medical needs based on the inadequate treatment he
rendered for Garrett’s hernia and constipation is without merit
because Garrett’s hernia and constipation were successfully
treated. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 839-41 (1994).
Any complaint Garrett might have with the delay in obtaining the
successful treatment does not entitle him to relief because he
fails to show resulting substantial harm. See Mendoza v.
Lynaugh, 989 F.2d 191, 193 (5th Cir. 1993).
Garrett’s argument that prison officials denied him his
right of access to the courts is meritless because, among other
reasons, he fails to show that his position as a litigant was
prejudiced. See Walker v. Navarro County Jail, 4 F.3d 410, 413
(5th Cir. 1993). His argument, based wholly on his own
speculation, that prison officials failed to investigate his
grievances adequately is meritless because the failure to follow
prison regulations alone does not give rise to a constitutional
claim under § 1983. See Hernandez v. Estelle, 788 F.2d 1154,
1158 (5th Cir. 1986).
Garrett’s attempt to incorporate the factual allegations and
arguments he raised in the district court in support of his
claims that the other defendant prison officials were also
deliberately indifferent to his medical needs and that they
No. 99-40796
-3-
retaliated against him because of his filing of prison grievances
is improper. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 225 (5th Cir.
1993). Accordingly, Garrett fails to meet his burden of showing
that the district court abused its discretion in dismissing these
two claims as frivolous.
Finally, Garrett’s assertion that the district court
attempted to deny him his right of appeal by entering an order of
noncompliance with the PLRA is based on a misunderstanding of the
proceedings and is frivolous. This appeal is frivolous. It is
DISMISSED. 5th Cir. R. 42.2