IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-60510

Summary Calendar

RANDY DALE JACKSON,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

DOCTOR DUNN; LORENZO CABE; FAYE NOEL, Interim Warden,

Defendants-Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 4:13-CV-79

Before KING, JOLLY, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Randy Dale Jackson, Mississippi prisoner # R8899, appeals the 

summary judgment dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. He alleges 

that the district court erred by granting the summary judgment motions 

because there were genuine issues of material fact regarding his claim that Dr. 

Dunn and Dr. Cabe were deliberately indifferent to his dental needs and 

genuine issues of material fact regarding his claim that Interim Warden Noel 

 

* 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

July 16, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 14-60510 Document: 00513118139 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/16/2015
No. 14-60510

2

violated his due process rights by refusing to investigate and expunge a false 

disciplinary conviction from his record. He also moves for appointment of 

counsel, to recuse the district court from the case, and for a preliminary 

injunction pending appeal.

This court reviews a district court’s ruling on summary judgment de 

novo, employing the same standard used by the district court. McFaul v. 

Valenzuela, 684 F.3d 564, 571 (5th Cir. 2012). A district court “shall grant 

summary judgment if the movant shows 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).

Prison officials violate the constitutional prohibition against cruel and 

unusual punishment when they demonstrate deliberate indifference to a 

prisoner’s serious medical needs, resulting in unnecessary and wanton 

infliction of pain. Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 297 (1991). “Deliberate 

indifference is an extremely high standard to meet.” Domino v. Texas Dep’t of 

Criminal Justice, 239 F.3d 752, 756 (5th Cir. 2001) (internal quotation marks 

and citation omitted). Neither an incorrect diagnosis nor the failure to 

alleviate a significant risk that an official should have perceived but did not is 

sufficient to establish deliberate indifference. See id. Similarly, unsuccessful 

treatment, medical malpractice, and acts of negligence do not constitute 

deliberate indifference; nor does a prisoner’s disagreement with his medical 

treatment, absent exceptional circumstances. See Gobert v. Caldwell, 463 F.3d 

339, 346 (5th Cir. 2006). Further, the question whether “additional diagnostic 

techniques or forms of treatment is indicated is a classic example of a matter 

for medical judgment.” Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 107 (1976).

Jackson’s medical records establish that his sick call requests for dental 

care have resulted in him being examined and treated. While in prison, 

 Case: 14-60510 Document: 00513118139 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/16/2015
No. 14-60510

3

Jackson has had fillings replaced, dentures provided, and medication 

prescribed. These records are sufficient to rebut Jackson’s allegation that he 

was denied treatment or that treatment was unconstitutionally delayed. 

See Gobert, 463 F.3d at 346. His disagreement with Dr. Dunn’s medical 

opinion concerning his teeth is likewise insufficient to state a claim of 

deliberate indifference. Norton v. Dimazana, 122 F.3d 286, 292 (5th Cir. 2001). 

Jackson’s claim that Dr. Cabe violated his constitutional rights by denying his 

administrative remedy program request is without merit. Jackson did not 

have a “federally protected liberty interest in having [his] grievances resolved 

to his satisfaction.” Geiger v. Jowers, 404 F.3d 371, 374 (5th Cir. 2005).

Jackson’s claim that Interim Warden Noel violated his due process rights 

by failing to investigate his claim about due process violations in his grievance 

procedure and by failing to expunge a retaliatory disciplinary conviction from 

his record is likewise without merit. Jackson does not have a constitutional 

right to have his grievance resolved in his favor or to have his claims reviewed 

pursuant to a grievance process that is responsive to his perceived injustices; 

thus, the denial of Jackson’s grievance and the failure of Interim Warden Noel

to find that he was subjected to retaliation or due process violations does not 

implicate his constitutional rights or give rise to a § 1983 claim. See Geiger, 

404 F.3d at 374.

In light of the foregoing, the district court did not err by granting the 

defendants’ motions for summary judgment. Accordingly, the judgment of the 

district court is affirmed. Jackson’s motions are denied.

AFFIRMED; MOTIONS DENIED.

 Case: 14-60510 Document: 00513118139 Page: 3 Date Filed: 07/16/2015