IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-41311
Summary Calendar
MICHAEL WAYNE SMITH,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
D. WELLS, In her individual capacity; M. CARLIN, in her
individual capacity; P. LUNSFORD, in her individual capacity;
P. WATERS, in her official & individual capacities; PEREZ,
Doctor; S. CHRISTENSEN, in her individual & official capacities;
JANE DOE, Dermatologist University of Texas, Medical Branch,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 1:98-CV-1715
--------------------
May 9, 2002
Before JONES, SMITH, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Michael Wayne Smith appeals the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 complaint against the above-named defendants as frivolous
and for failure to state a claim, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(I) & (ii).
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 01-41311
-2-
Smith argues that he was a pretrial detainee at the time of
the events alleged in his complaint, and that the district court
therefore erred in analyzing his claims against a deliberate
indifference standard. Smith contends that the district court
should have made further inquiry into his pretrial detainee
status.
Despite Smith’s argument against application of the
deliberate indifference standard, he argues that the district
court erred in failing to find that nurses at the Orange County
Jail (Jail) acted deliberately indifferent when they denied Smith
a follow-up visit with his dermatologist (Dr. Doe). He also
challenges the district court’s dismissal of his failure-to-
receive-antihistamine claim, arguing that the district court
erred in it factual/legal determination that the Jail nurses’
disagreement with Dr. Doe’s recommended treatment failed to
constitute deliberate indifference. Because Smith does not
challenge his remaining claims of deliberate indifference raised
in the district court, those issues are deemed abandoned. See
Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 225 (5th Cir. 1993).
We have reviewed the record and Smith’s appellate brief and
hold that, even accepting as true Smith’s claim regarding his
pretrial detainee status, the district court committed no error
since the deliberate indifference standard still applies to
Smith’s claims. See Gibbs v. Grimmette, 254 F.3d 545, 548 (5th
Cir. 2001). Smith does not demonstrate that the failure to
No. 01-41311
-3-
schedule his follow-up appointment or deliver his antihistamine
prescription constituted more than negligent conduct on the part
of the Jail nurses. Accordingly, the district court did not err
in dismissing Smith’s complaint as frivolous and for failure to
state a claim. See Wagner v. Bay City, Tex., 227 F.3d 316, 324
(5th Cir. 2000); Berry v. Brady, 192 F.3d 504, 507 (5th Cir.
1999); Williams v. Treen, 671 F.2d 892, 901 (5th Cir. 1982).
AFFIRMED.