United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
December 1, 2006
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 06-50396
Summary Calendar
EDUARDO RODRIGUEZ-RODRIGUEZ,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
DENNIS SMITH, Federal Correctional Institution La Tuna,
Warden; LAYUMAS, Medical Director,
Federal Correctional Institution La Tuna, Texas,
Defendants-
Appellees.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 3:05-CV-387
----------------------------------------------------------------
Before DeMOSS, STEWART and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Eduardo Rodriguez-Rodriguez, federal prisoner # 08442-029, moves for leave to proceed in
forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal. Rodriguez filed a Bivens** suit alleging that the defendants were
deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs. The district court dismissed the suit for failure
*
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be
published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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.
**
Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388
(1971).
to state a claim, denied Rodriguez’s motion for IFP, and certified that the appeal was not taken in
good faith. By moving for IFP here, Rodriguez is challenging the district court’s certification. See
Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997); FED. R. APP. P. 24(a). This court’s inquiry into
whether the appeal is taken in good faith “is limited to whether the appeal involves ‘legal points
arguable on their merits (and therefore not frivolous).’” Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir.
1983)(citation omitted).
Rodriguez argues that the district court erroneously concluded that the defendants were not
deliberately indifferent to his medical needs. Rodriguez fails to show that the defendants refused to
treat him, ignored his complaints, intentionally treated him incorrectly, or engaged in any similar
conduct that would clearly evince a wanton disregard for any serious medical needs. See Domino v.
Texas Dep’t of Criminal Justice, 239 F.3d 752, 756 (5th Cir. 2001). Rodriguez’s medical records
show that he was examined repeatedly and received extensive treatment and objective tests for his
back, shoulder, and flu-like symptoms. These records rebut his claims of deliberate indifference. See
Banuelos v. McFarland, 41 F.3d 232, 235 (5th Cir. 1995). At most, Rodriguez has alleged a
disagreement with the course of his medical treatment, which is insufficient to state a claim. See
Varnado v. Lynaugh, 920 F.2d 320, 321 (5th Cir. 1991).
With the benefit of liberal construction, Rodriguez also argues that the district court erred by
not providing him with copies of the medical records submitted by the Bureau of Prisons (BOP). The
district court properly ordered the BOP to submit copies of the records as part of its screening of this
prisoner-rights case. See Norton v. Dimazana, 122 F.3d 286, 292 (5th Cir. 1997). Rodriguez’s
assertion that he also should have received copies of the records may be arguable on the merits.
However, the magistrate judge accurately summarized, in some detail, the medical records, and
-2-
Rodriguez has not contested the factual accuracy of the magistrate judge’s report. Further, as noted
above, the records establish that the defendants were not deliberately indifferent, and the error, if it
existed, was harmless. Therefore, Rodriguez’s motion for IFP is granted, but the district court’s
dismissal of the complaint is affirmed.
MOTION FOR IFP GRANTED; AFFIRMED.
-3-