IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-10048
Summary Calendar
BRIAN D. MCQUEEN,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
TIMOTHY REVELL, DR., in his individual capacity; WILLIAM
GONZALEZ, MD., in his individual capacity; DAVID BASSE, MD.,
in his individual capacity; CHARLES RIDGE, DR., in his
individual capacity; CARTER KARR, MD., in his individual
capacity; ET AL.,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 2:01-CV-88
--------------------
July 25, 2002
Before JONES, SMITH and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Brian D. McQueen, Texas prisoner # 631997, appeals the
district court’s dismissal, as frivolous and for failure to state
a claim, of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint concerning denied and
delayed medical care.
Prison officials violate the constitutional prohibition
against cruel and unusual punishment when they demonstrate
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 02-10048
-2-
deliberate indifference to a prisoner's serious medical needs,
constituting an unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain.
Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 297 (1991). 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); see Reeves v. Collins, 27 F.3d
174, 176-77 (5th Cir. 1994) (applying Farmer to a denial-of-
medical-care claim). Unsuccessful medical treatment, negligence,
neglect, and medical malpractice are insufficient to give rise to
a constitutional violation. See Varnado v. Lynaugh, 920 F.2d
320, 321 (5th Cir. 1991). A delay in medical care violates the
Eighth Amendment only if it is due to deliberate indifference and
the delay results in substantial harm. Mendoza v. Lynaugh, 989
F.2d 191, 195 (5th Cir. 1993). A prisoner's disagreement with
his medical treatment is not sufficient to state a claim under §
1983. Varnado, 920 F.2d at 321.
McQueen repeats the detailed factual allegations, which he
made in the district court, concerning denied or delayed
treatment for his hepatitis C, hypoglycemia, abdominal nodules,
and a nasal infection. He does not adequately brief any
challenge to the district court’s and magistrate judge’s specific
determinations as to why his factual allegations do not state a
constitutional claim for deliberate indifference to serious
medical needs. When an appellant fails to identify any error in
No. 02-10048
-3-
the district court's analysis, it is the same as if the appellant
had not appealed that judgment. Brinkmann v. Dallas County
Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987).
Although pro se briefs are afforded liberal construction, see
Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972), even pro se litigants
must brief arguments in order to preserve them. Yohey v.
Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993). Thus, McQueen has
abandoned these issues by failing to brief them adequately.
McQueen contends that the facts he alleged showed a pattern
of deliberate indifference. “[E]ach defendant's subjective
deliberate indifference, vel non, must be examined separately.”
Stewart v. Murphy, 174 F.3d 530, 537 (5th Cir. 1999). The
alleged independent acts of negligence by each defendant do not
demonstrate that each doctor knew that his acts or omissions
subjected McQueen to an excessive risk of harm, yet responded to
the risk with deliberate indifference, or that the defendants
denied, substantially delayed, or intentionally interfered with
McQueen’s treatment.
McQueen argues that his dental-care claim against defendants
Carter Karr, a dentist, and Romalee Barbaree, a dental hygienist,
should not have been severed. The district court did not abuse
its broad discretion in severing this claim, which does not arise
out of the same occurrences related to McQueen’s denied-or-
delayed-medical-treatment claims, against these defendants, who
were not involved in the other alleged incidents of deliberate
No. 02-10048
-4-
indifference to his medical needs. See FED. R. CIV. P. 21;
Williams v. Hoyt, 556 F.2d 1336, 1341 (5th Cir. 1977).
The district court's dismissal of McQueen’s complaint as
frivolous and for failure to state a claim on which relief can be
granted is AFFIRMED.
AFFIRMED.