United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT June 21, 2007
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 06-40904
Summary Calendar
JERRY DON CLARK,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
DOCTOR GLENDA ADAMS,
Defendant-Appellee.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 9:05-CV-208
--------------------
Before SMITH, DeMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Jerry Don Clark, Texas prisoner # 575402, appeals the
dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint, alleging deliberate
indifference to his serious medical needs. The district court
dismissed the complaint as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915A. We review the dismissal de novo. Ruiz v. United
States, 160 F.3d 273, 275 (5th Cir. 1998).
A prison official acts with deliberate indifference “only if
he knows that inmates face a substantial risk of serious harm and
disregards that risk by failing to take reasonable measures to
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 06-40904
-2-
abate it.” Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 847 (1994). A
showing of deliberate indifference requires the inmate to submit
evidence that prison officials “‘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.’” Domino v. Texas Dep’t
of Criminal Justice, 239 F.3d 752, 756 (5th Cir. 2001)(citation
omitted). “[T]he decision whether to provide additional
treatment is a classic example of a matter for medical judgment.”
Id. (internal quotation omitted). “Deliberate indifference is an
extremely high standard to meet.” Id.
The gist of Clark’s argument is that the treatment that he
is currently receiving for his condition, bilateral hernias, is
wholly ineffective and that Dr. Adams should have referred him
for corrective surgery and only chose not to for economic
reasons. Clark fails to show that Dr. Adams was aware of facts
demonstrating a substantial risk of serious harm and disregarded
the risk by failing to take reasonable measures to treat Clark.
See Farmer, 511 U.S. at 847. The medical records show that Clark
was seen by medical personnel and was given medication and a
truss. Clark’s allegations are best described as a disagreement
with the medical treatment he has received or, at most,
allegations that Dr. Adams was negligent in failing to refer him
for surgery. Such disagreement or negligence does not establish
a constitutional violation. See Varnado v. Lynaugh, 920 F.2d
No. 06-40904
-3-
320, 321 (5th Cir. 1991). Thus, the judgment of the district
court is affirmed.
The district court’s dismissal of the present case and this
court’s affirmance of the dismissal count as one strike against
Clark for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Adepegba v.
Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 387-88 (5th Cir. 1996). Clark is warned
that, should he accumulate three strikes, he will be barred
from proceeding in forma pauperis in any civil action or appeal
filed while he is incarcerated or detained in any facility unless
he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. See
§ 1915(g).
AFFIRMED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.