IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-41149
Summary Calendar
CHARLES TERRY TIDWELL,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
P.A. FORTNER, Powledge Unit; H. CLAYTON, Doctor, Beto I;
UNIDENTIFIED RAHI, Doctor, Luther Unit;
GARY JOHNSON, Executive Director, TDCJ; OWEN MURRAY, D.O. UTMB;
K.C. LOVE, Doctor, Beto I Unit,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 6:01-CV-596
--------------------
February 12, 2003
Before JONES, DUHÉ, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:1
Inmate Charles Terry Tidwell appeals in forma pauperis (IFP)
the magistrate judge’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action as
frivolous for failure to state a claim. Tidwell argues that the
question of whether medical personnel had subjective knowledge of
his medical condition is a fact question and that the prison
doctors delayed and denied treatment by not referring him to
1
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
specialists earlier, causing him to lose his leg and hip. Tidwell
also argues that the magistrate judge’s alternate holding that he
had failed to exhaust his administrative remedies was incorrect.
We review a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A de novo. See Ruiz v.
United States, 160 F.3d 273, 275 (5th Cir. 1998).
The Cruel and Unusual Punishment clause protects an inmate
from improper medical care, but only if the care is “sufficiently
harmful to evidence deliberate indifference to serious medical
needs.” Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976). Deliberate
indifference encompasses only unnecessary and wanton infliction of
pain repugnant to the conscience of mankind. Id. at 105-06.
The record demonstrates that Tidwell received a considerable
amount of medical treatment, including multiple surgeries and
debridements in an effort to save his leg, rebutting his claim that
prison officials were deliberately indifferent to his serious
medical needs. See Banuelos v. McFarland, 41 F.3d 232, 235 (5th
Cir. 1995). While Tidwell no doubt disagrees with the medical
treatment he received, such disagreement does not state a claim for
deliberate indifference to his medical needs. See Norton v.
Dimazana, 122 F.3d 286, 292 (5th Cir. 1997). At most, he has
alleged an action in negligence or malpractice, which does not
state a constitutional violation. See Varnado v. Lynaugh, 920 F.2d
320, 321 (5th Cir. 1991). The magistrate judge’s judgment that
Tidwell’s suit was frivolous because he had failed to state a claim
for deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs was
2
correct. Therefore, we do not address the magistrate judge’s
alternate holding that Tidwell failed to exhaust his administrative
remedies. The judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED.
3