IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-40209

Summary Calendar

JUAN A. MORENO,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

ISAAC KWARTING; LISA KENDRA; ERICK ECHAVARRY; STEVEN 

STEGER; CAPTAIN S. PLACIDO; DONNA BRYANT; ASSISTANT WARDEN 

C. FURR,

Defendants-Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 2:16-CV-543

Before KING, SOUTHWICK, and ENGELHARDT, Circuit Judges:

PER CURIAM:*

Juan A. Moreno, Texas prisoner # 1689833, appeals the district court’s 

dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit on summary judgment and denial of his 

postjudgment motion to amend under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). 

In his § 1983 action, Moreno alleged that defendants Isaac Kwarting, Erick 

Echavarry, and Dr. Steven Steger were deliberately indifferent to his serious 

 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

April 2, 2019

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 18-40209 Document: 00514898290 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/02/2019
No. 18-40209

2

medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Moreno has abandoned

any other claims against these or other defendants by failing to brief them. See

Brinkmann v. Dallas Cnty. Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 

1987).

We review the grant of a motion for summary judgment de novo. Xtreme 

Lashes, LLC v. Xtended Beauty, Inc., 576 F.3d 221, 226 (5th Cir. 2009).

Summary judgment is appropriate if the record discloses “that there is no 

genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment 

as a matter of law.” FED. R. CIV. P. 56(a). We review “the denial of a Rule 59(e) 

motion only for abuse of discretion.” Simon v. United States, 891 F.2d 1154, 

1159 (5th Cir. 1990).

“To establish a claim under § 1983,” Moreno “must (1) allege a violation 

of a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States and 

(2) demonstrate that the alleged deprivation was committed by a person acting 

under color of state law.” Pratt v. Harris Cnty., Tex., 822 F.3d 174, 180 (5th 

Cir. 2016) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The Constitution 

imposes on prison officials the duty to “take reasonable measures to guarantee 

the safety of the inmates.” Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 832 (1994) 

(internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The Eighth Amendment 

prohibits the wanton and unnecessary infliction of pain. See Estelle v. Gamble, 

429 U.S. 97, 104 (1976). A prison official must have a state of mind of at least 

“deliberate indifference” to inmate health or safety to support a claim against 

him. See Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 302-03 (1991). Mere negligence or 

medical malpractice is not enough. Stewart v. Murphy, 174 F.3d 530, 534 (5th 

Cir. 1999).

Moreno’s medical records demonstrate that he received ample medical 

attention for his eye, back, and foot issues, including multiple visits to medical 

 Case: 18-40209 Document: 00514898290 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/02/2019
No. 18-40209

3

personnel, pain medication, eye drops, diagnostic tests, and referrals to 

specialists. While he may disagree with some aspects of his treatment, “a 

prisoner’s disagreement with his medical treatment” does not constitute 

deliberate indifference, “absent exceptional circumstances.” Gobert v. 

Caldwell, 463 F.3d 339, 346 (5th Cir. 2006). To the extent that Moreno did not 

always receive care that was apparently recommended by medical providers, 

nothing in the record indicates that this was anything other than mere 

negligence or, at most, medical malpractice, which is insufficient to 

demonstrate deliberate indifference. See id.; Stewart, 174 F.3d at 534. As to 

the argument Moreno unsuccessfully raised in his Rule 59(e) motion — that he 

stated a state tort claim for medical negligence in his amended complaint,

which the district court had supplemental jurisdiction over and which it failed 

to address before dismissing the case — his complaint did not actually raise 

such a claim.

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. Moreno’s 

motions to amend and for leave to file are DENIED.

 Case: 18-40209 Document: 00514898290 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/02/2019