United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS May 21, 2003
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 02-41163
Summary Calendar
ZACHARY L. KNIGHTEN,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
ROBERT L. OTT; ET AL,
Defendants,
THOMAS MANN, Field Lieutenant; DANNY L. WILBORN,
Field Sergeant; MICHAEL HADNOT, Field Sergeant;
AMY POWELL, Correctional Officer 3; ROBERT BROWN,
Physician; GENE LESTER, Physician; FRED HUFF,
Physician Assistant; MICHAEL MOORE, Physician
Assistant; JEAN MARMARINOU, Head Nurse; ALECIA OWEN,
RN-Nurse; LLODY ASCHBERGER; A. FLOWERS; J. MOTT,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 9:99-CV-171
--------------------
Before DAVIS, WIENER, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Plaintiff-Appellant Zachary L. Knighten, Texas prisoner #
627114, appeals the summary-judgment dismissal of his claims of
deliberate indifference to his medical needs, in violation of the
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
Eighth Amendment. He does not brief any argument in connection
with the other claims raised in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 lawsuit, so
those claims are waived. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-
25 (5th Cir. 1993). For that reason, his “Motion to Dismiss
Partial Claims,” seeking voluntarily to dismiss the other claims
raised below, is DENIED as unnecessary.
We review the district court’s grant of summary judgment de
novo. See Melton v. Teachers Ins. & Annuity Ass’n of Am., 114 F.3d
557, 559 (5th Cir. 1997). Summary-judgment dismissal of Knighten’s
claim that medical officials were deliberately indifferent to his
medical needs by discontinuing his prescription for nitrostat pills
was proper. Competent summary-judgment evidence established that
Knighten was stockpiling the pills, and that, despite the
discontinuation of his prescription, he could receive such pills
simply by going to the infirmary when chest pains occurred.
Knighten has neither alleged nor shown that he has been denied
nitrostat pills on any occasion when he was actually suffering from
chest pains. His conclusional assertions that he did not stockpile
pills, that he would have received a disciplinary case if he had,
and that his medical records were falsified are insufficient to
defeat the medical defendants’ summary-judgment evidence or to
create a genuine issue of material fact. See Michaels v. Avitech,
Inc., 202 F.3d 746, 754-55 (5th Cir. 2000). Furthermore, these
assertions and the statement provided by Knighten’s fellow inmate
to the effect that Nurse Marmarinou interferes with doctors’
2
diagnoses are irrelevant to the question whether Knighten was ever
denied medical treatment for chest pains when they occurred. As
the district court determined, Knighten’s claim is not one for the
denial of medical care but reflects only his dissatisfaction with
the treatment he received, which is insufficient to give rise to a
42 U.S.C. § 1983 cause of action. See Varnado v. Lynaugh, 920 F.2d
320, 321 (5th Cir. 1991).
Knighten also contends that the district court ignored his
claims regarding leg and back pain. He renews his argument that he
was denied treatment for those pains, as well as his arguments that
his medical restrictions were improperly lifted and that he was
improperly denied a cane. Although the district court did not
specifically address these claims, they are similarly unavailing.
Knighten’s medical file does not support his claim of medical
restrictions based on back or leg pain, and it makes no mention of
either the confiscation of a cane or any prohibitions against
lifting. Thus, the record does not clearly evince the need for the
medical treatment alleged, which defeats Knighten’s Eighth
Amendment claim. See Johnson v. Treen, 759 F.2d 1236, 1238 (5th
Cir. 1985). Further, Knighten’s file shows that he underwent
several muskoskeletal evaluations as a result of his numerous
complaints of leg and back pain and that, on each of the numerous
occasions he complained of such pain, he was treated with some
combination of ibuprofen, Motrin, and hot or cold packs. As with
his claim of chest pains, Knighten’s claims of deliberate
3
indifference to his leg and back pain do not involve the denial of
medical care. Rather, they amount to nothing more than
dissatisfaction or disagreement with the treatment he received and
therefore fail under the Eighth Amendment. See Varnado, 920 F.2d
at 321. Because all of Knighten’s claims fail as a matter of law,
summary-judgment dismissal was appropriate. See Celotex Corp. v.
Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986).
The district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED, and Knighten’s
“Motion for Requested Relief,” seeking entry of judgment in
his favor, is DENIED.
JUDGMENT AFFIRMED; MOTIONS DENIED.
4