United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT August 18, 2004
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 03-21202
Summary Calendar
DEXTER ARTHUR JACKSON
Plaintiff - Appellant
v.
JOE FERNAULD, WYNNE UNIT MEDICAL STAFF, PAUL M MOORE,
DOUG DRETKE, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice,
Correctional Institutions Division, UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS MEDICAL
BRANCH, GARY MOHR, STEPHEN MARTIN, LLOYD ASCHBERGER, JENNY
ABRAHAM, WALTER ZALENSKI, III, JOANNA ALFORD, JOHN DOE, JAMES
WESTMORELAND, JOHN SEALY HOSPITAL
Defendants - Appellees
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. H-02-CV-609
--------------------
Before KING, Chief Judge, and DAVIS and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Dexter Arthur Jackson, former Texas prisoner number 565215,
filed the instant § 1983 suit to seek redress for, inter alia,
the defendants’ alleged indifference to his serious medical needs
while he was incarcerated. Jackson argues that district court
erred in granting the defendants’ motion for summary judgment
because they failed to treat his broken thumb properly and
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 03-21202
-2-
promptly. Jackson’s allegations amount to no more than
assertions of negligence, malpractice, and failure to provide
additional treatment. These allegations are insufficient to show
deliberate indifference. See Domino v. Texas Dep’t. of Criminal
Justice, 239 F.3d 752, 755 (5th Cir. 2001); Stewart v. Murphy,
174 F. 3d 530, 534 (5th Cir. 1999); Varnado v. Lynaugh, 920 F.2d
320, 321 (5th Cir. 1991). Jackson’s argument that the district
court should not have granted summary judgment in the absence of
affidavits is unavailing. Jackson has not shown that the
district court erred in granting the defendants’ motion for
summary judgment and dismissing his suit.
Jackson also has not shown that the district court abused
its discretion in relation to discovery. See Karaha Bodas Co.,
LLC. v. Perusahaan Pertambangan Minyak Dan Gas Bumi Negara, 364
F.3d 274, 304-05 (5th Cir. 2004); King v. Dogan, 31 F.3d 344, 346
(5th Cir. 1994). Jackson has not shown that he made any
discovery requests that were denied, nor has he identified any
particular documents that he wished to obtain through discovery.
The judgment of the lower court is AFFIRMED.