IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-30149

Summary Calendar

CLAUDE R. FRAZIER,

Plaintiff−Appellant,

versus

TIMOTHY KEITH; DOCTOR MARK SINGLETON; DANIEL MARS; 

CORRECTIONS CORPORATION OF AMERICA; JAMES LEBLANC; 

DOCTOR STEPHEN KUPLESKY; NURSE AMY BRUNSON,

Defendants−Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

No. 1:13-CV-3110

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Claude Frazier, Louisiana prisoner #274096, filed a civil rights 

 

* 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

January 3, 2018

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 17-30149 Document: 00514292814 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/03/2018
No. 17-30149

2

complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that he was denied medical care 

after he fell from an unsecured shower chair. He further claimed that prison 

officials refused to provide an air mattress to alleviate his bed sores even 

though a doctor from an outside facility had prescribed it.

Frazier contends that the district court erred in granting summary judgment and dismissing. He further avers that he should have been appointed 

counsel, given that he is a paraplegic. He incorporates a motion for leave to 

amend his complaint.

This court reviews a summary judgment de novo, applying the same 

standard as the district court. Nickell v. Beau View of Biloxi, L.L.C., 636 F.3d 

752, 754 (5th Cir. 2011). Summary judgment is appropriate if “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).

To prevail on a claim of deliberate indifference to medical needs, the 

plaintiff must establish that the defendant denied him treatment, purposefully 

gave him improper treatment, or ignored his medical complaints. Gobert v. 

Caldwell, 463 F.3d 339, 346 (5th Cir. 2006). A prisoner’s disagreement with 

his medical treatment generally is not enough to show deliberate indifference. 

Id.

Frazier alleged that the defendants failed properly to diagnose and treat 

him after he fell in the shower. The competent summary judgment evidence 

shows that Frazier was examined by medical staff after he fell. The medical 

staff were responsive to his complaints of pain and provided him with pain 

medication. Frazier presented no countervailing evidence. He may disagree 

with the extent of the treatment or consider it ineffective, but that is insufficient to show deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. See id.

 Case: 17-30149 Document: 00514292814 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/03/2018
No. 17-30149

3

Frazier also alleged that the defendants refused to provide an air mattress to alleviate symptoms associated with his bed sores, resulting in pain and 

suffering. Frazier’s medical records indicate that the defendants considered 

his request for an air mattress but determined that it would not help. The 

choice between forms of treatment “is a classic example of a matter of professional judgment” and does not support a finding of deliberate indifference. 

Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 107 (1976). The medical records also demonstrate that Frazier received consistent medical treatment for his bed sores and 

related medical issues. Frazier has failed to show a genuine issue of material 

fact with respect to the refusal to provide an air mattress, and the district court 

did not err in granting summary judgment on the issue.

Frazier also complained that the defendants had failed to provide a safe 

shower area for paraplegics. Because Frazier did not file an administrative 

grievance regarding the safety of the shower area, the district court correctly 

dismissed the claim as unexhausted. See 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a); Jones v. Bock, 

549 U.S. 199, 211 (2007).

According to Frazier, the defendants violated his constitutional rights by 

providing an “unsecured” shower chair that lacked rubber stoppers and created

a substantial risk of harm to paraplegics because the chair could slide or tip 

over. An affidavit from the prison’s medical director stated that all shower 

chairs were ordered through a medical supplier, were medical grade, and were 

designed for use by disabled persons. The shower chairs contained rubber 

stoppers on the feet to prevent sliding. Though Frazier alleged that prison 

employees removed the shower chairs without stoppers and replaced them 

with new ones with stoppers after defense counsel had notified them of the 

alleged defect, Frazier provided no evidence to support that allegation. A party 

opposing a properly supported summary judgment motion may not rest on 

 Case: 17-30149 Document: 00514292814 Page: 3 Date Filed: 01/03/2018
No. 17-30149

4

mere allegations contained in the pleadings to demonstrate a genuine issue of 

material fact. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 256 (1986). The 

district court did not err in granting summary judgment on this issue.

Frazier’s statement of the issues includes a challenge to the refusal to 

appoint counsel. He also questions the grant of summary judgment on “nondisputed” claims, which he does not identify. He provides no further argument

on these issues. Although this court liberally construes the briefs of pro se 

litigants, arguments must be briefed to be preserved. Yohey v. Collins, 

985 F.2d 222, 225 (5th Cir. 1993); FED. R. APP. P. 28(a)(8)(A). Frazier has 

abandoned these issues by failing to brief them. See Yohey, 985 F.2d at 225.

The judgment is AFFIRMED. The motion for leave to amend is 

DENIED.

 Case: 17-30149 Document: 00514292814 Page: 4 Date Filed: 01/03/2018