### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 17

- 30149 Summary Calendar

CLAUDE R. FRAZIER , Plaintiff

− Appellant ,

v ersus TIMOTHY KEITH; DOCTOR MARK SINGLETON; DANIEL MARS; CORRECTIONS CORPORATION OF AMERICA; JAMES LEBLANC; DOCTOR STEPHEN KUPLESKY; NURSE AMY BRUNSON , Defendant s − Appellee s
.

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 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. 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: 01/03/2018No. 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 sum mary judg

ment and dismissing. He further a ver s that he should have been ap pointed counsel , given that he is a paraplegic. He incorporate s 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 judg

ment as a matter of law. ” F ED

. R. C IV

. 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 comp laints. 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 hi m 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 n o countervailing evidence. He may disagree with the extent of the treatment or consider it ineffective, but that is insuffi

cient to show deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. See id. Case: 17-30149 Document: 00514292814 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/03/2018No. 17

- 30149

3 Frazier also alleged that the defendants refused to pr ovide an air mat

tress 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 choi ce between forms of treatment “is a classic example of a matter of profes

sional judgment” and does not support a finding of deliberate indifference. Estelle v. Gamble , 429 U.S. 97, 107 (1976)

. The medical records also dem on strate that Frazier received consistent medical treatment for his bed sores and related medical issues. Frazier has failed to show a genuine issue of mate rial 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 griev ance regarding the safety of the shower area, the distri ct court correctly dis missed 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 providin g 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 d esigned 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 show er chairs without stoppers and replaced them with new ones with stoppers after d efense counsel had notified them of the alleged defect, Frazier provided no evidence to support th at allegation . A party opposing a properly supported summary judgment motion may not rest on Case: 17-30149 Document: 00514292814 Page: 3 Date Filed: 01/03/2018No. 17

- 30149

4 mere allegations contained in the pleadings to demonstrate a gen uine 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 “non

disputed” claims, which he does not identify. He provides no further argument on these issues

. Although this court liberally construes the briefs of pro se liti gants, arguments must be briefed to b e preserved. Yohey v. Collins , 985 F.2d 222, 225 (5th Cir. 1993); F ED

. R. A PP

. P. 28(a)(8)(A). Frazier has abandoned the se issue s 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