IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-41421
Summary Calendar
WILLIE E. WADE,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
DAVID FORTNER,
Defendant-Appellee.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 6:00-CV-398
--------------------
March 26, 2001
Before DAVIS, JONES and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Willie F. Wade (TDCJ # 866019) appeals the magistrate
judge’s dismissal of his pro se civil rights complaint against
Physician’s Assistant David Fortner wherein he alleged that
Fortner refused to treat him for chest pains.** The magistrate
judge ordered that the complaint be dismissed as frivolous
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A because Wade received a substantial
quantum of care for his various complaints and because the single
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
**
The parties consented to proceed before the magistrate
judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).
No. 00-41421
-2-
incident in which Wade did not receive treatment did not amount
to deliberate indifference to his medical needs. The magistrate
judge also noted that Wade had not shown that he had suffered any
harm as a result of being denied medical treatment.
We review the district court’s dismissal of Wade’s complaint
for an abuse of discretion. See Berry v. Brady, 192 F.3d 504,
507 (5th Cir. 1999). A prison official acts with deliberate
indifference “only if he knows that inmates face a substantial
risk of serious harm and disregards that risk by failing to take
reasonable measures to abate it.” Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S.
825, 847 (1994); Reeves v. Collins, 27 F.3d 174, 176-77 (5th Cir.
1994). “[D]elay in medical care can only constitute an Eighth
Amendment violation if there has been deliberate indifference,
which results in substantial harm.” Mendoza v. Lynaugh, 989 F.2d
191, 195 (5th Cir. 1993).
Wade has not shown that the magistrate judge abused her
discretion by dismissing the complaint as frivolous. See Berry,
192 F.3d at 507. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.