IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-20051

Summary Calendar

PATRICK BERNARD SMITH,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

BETTY WILLIAMS, M.D.; BRENDA HOUGH, N.P.; CHARLES NAGEL;

V I C T O R I A R A Y ; U N I V E R S IT Y O F T E X A S M E D I C A L

BRANCH/CORRECTIONAL MANAGED HEALTH CARE COMMITTEE;

SHANTA CRAWFORD; DR LANNETTE LINTHICUM; ALFRED JANICEK;

NATHANIEL QUARTERMAN; SGT. MICHAEL OLSEN; CO SEAN MURRAY;

ROBERT D. ROE; HOWARD K. BENNETT; RANDALL HEALY; MARK

MINSHEW; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER PENELOPE R. BURNES;

CORRECTIONALOFFICER KEVIN L. CARLVIN; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER

JESSE L. DAVIS; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER DOMENICO DEPALMA;

CORRECTIONAL OFFICER ERIC A. MCCLENDON; CORRECTIONAL

OFFICER GREG S. VICKERY; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER DAVID K.

WRIGHT,

Defendants-Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:09-CV-1025

Before WIENER, GARZA, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

March 22, 2012

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 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.

Case: 11-20051 Document: 00511797384 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/22/2012
No. 11-20051

Plaintiff-Appellant Patrick Bernard Smith appeals the dismissal of his 42

U.S.C. § 1983 action against four of the original defendants, namely, Betty

Williams, Brenda Hough, Charles Nagel, Victoria Ray, and two subsequently

added defendants, namely, correction officers David Fransaw and Sgt. Cable,

who together are the only defendants who were not previously dismissed. The

action arises from knee injuries Smith suffered at the O.B. Ellis Unit of the

Texas Department of Criminal Justice in 2007. 

Summary judgment was properly granted in favor of the medical

defendants, Williams, Hough, Nagel, and Ray, because Smith failed to identify

any genuinely contested issue of material fact whether any of these defendants

acted with deliberate indifference to a serious medical need. See FEDERAL RULE

OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 56(a). Although the record reveals some possibly

inaccurate assessments of Smith’s knee problem, due largely to his failure to

cooperate and the skepticism that it generated, the plethora of summary

judgment evidence in the record establishes that, despite their skepticism, the

medical defendants conscientiously examined and treated Smith. He offers only

his own bald conclusions, refuted by the medical record, that these defendants

refused to act to remedy his medical condition. Smith’s complaint is, at best, a

claim of negligence, malpractice, or mere disagreement about the course of

treatment. See Varnado v. Lynaugh, 920 F.2d 320, 321 (5th Cir. 1991). 

His brief on appeal, even when liberally construed, demonstrates that

Smith has failed to make any coherent challenge to the district court’s dismissal

of the claims against correction officers Fransaw and Cable under 28 U.S.C.

§§ 1915 & 1915A and 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(c). At best, he has offered only vague

and unsupported accusations that they used excessive force, interfered with

medical treatment, and retaliated against him for exercising his constitutional

rights. Such unadorned accusations that these defendants caused some harm

R. 47.5.4.

2

Case: 11-20051 Document: 00511797384 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/22/2012
No. 11-20051

are insufficient to support a claim that constitutional rights were violated. 

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, __, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009). Smith has also

failed to state a plausible or coherent claim for violation of the Americans with

Disabilities Act. See id.

In summary, Smith has failed to show any error in the dismissal of any

claim against any defendant. The judgment of the district court is therefore

AFFIRMED

3

Case: 11-20051 Document: 00511797384 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/22/2012