United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT December 9, 2003
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 03-40542
Conference Calendar
KENNETH W. BELL,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
J. MASON, DENTIST; JAMES R. ZELLER, SENIOR WARDEN; ROCHELLE
MCKINNEY, RN, MEDICAL ASSISTANT PATIENT LIAISON OFFICE,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 9:02-CV-157
--------------------
Before DAVIS, EMILIO M. GARZA, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Kenneth W. Bell, Texas prisoner # 664980, appeals the
dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights complaint
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1). Bell argues that Dr. J.
Mason, a prison dentist, was deliberately indifferent to his
serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment
because Dr. Mason removed a wisdom tooth while it was infected.
He further argues that other prison officials are liable to him
because they denied his Step 1 and Step 2 grievance forms
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 03-40542
-2-
in which he complained about the treatment he received from
Dr. Mason.
Bell has not alleged facts sufficient to raise an inference
that Dr. Mason was deliberately indifferent to Bell’s serious
medical needs. See Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976).
To the extent that Bell disagrees with prison officials regarding
his medical treatment, such disagreements are not cognizable
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Varnado v. Lynaugh, 920 F.2d 320,
321 (5th Cir. 1991). Consequently, Bell’s derivative claims
against the prison officials who denied his grievance forms also
fail.
Bell also argues that the district court’s dismissal of his
complaint had the effect of denying him access to the courts.
This argument is frivolous as Bell was allowed to file his
complaint and was given ample opportunity to develop his claims.
See Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 355-56 (1996).
Because this appeal is frivolous, it is DISMISSED.
See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983);
5TH CIR. R. 42.2. We caution Bell that the dismissal of this
appeal as frivolous and the dismissal of the complaint by the
district court as frivolous and for failure to state a claim
both count as a strike for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
See Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 388 (5th Cir. 1996).
APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.