### IN THE UNI TED STAT ES COURT OFAPPEALS FOR THE FIF TH CIRCU IT

No. 11-40395 Summary Calendar

KENNETH WAYNE MENARD, SR., Plaintiff-Appellant

v. CHARLES WAGNER, Brazoria County Sheriff; BENNETT, Nurse Ms. “B”; MS. TAYLOR, County Jail Doctor, Defendants-Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 3:09-CV-8

Before GARZA, SOUTHWICK, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Kenneth Wayne Menard, S r . , T ex a s p ri s o n e r # 724683, appeals the district

cour t ’ s grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendants, holding them protected by qualified immunity from his civil rights suit. Menard alleged that the defendants were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs in that they did not provide adequate treatment for his injured elbow. We AFFIRM. U n i te d S ta te s C o u rt o f A p p ea l s

F i ft h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D Decem ber 1 9, 2 011 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk

Purs uant to 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5 , the cour t has d ete rm inedt hat this op inion sho uld not * be publ ish ed and is not pr ece dent excep t unde r the lim ite d cir cum st ance s se t for th in 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5 .4. Case: 11-40395 Document: 00511700328 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/19/2011No. 11-40395

We review the grant of a motion for summary judgment de novo, applying the same standards as the district court. Hill v. Carroll Cnty., Miss. , 587 F.3d 230, 233 (5th Ci r . 2 0 0 9). “The 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.” F E D
. R. C IV
. P. 56(a). “Qualified immunity protects government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory

or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’” Lytle

v. Bexar Cnty., Tex. , 560 F.3d 404, 409 (5th Cir. 2009) (quoting Harlow v. Fitzgerald , 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982)). We consider “whether, taking the facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, the officer’s alleged conduct violated a constitutional right.” Id. at 410 (citing Saucier v. Katz , 53 3 U

. S

. 1 9 4 , 201 (2001)). The record shows that the d e f e n d a n t s did not act with indifference to Menard’s serious medical needs. See Domino v. Texas Dep’t of Criminal Justice , 239 F.3d 752, 756 (5th Cir. 2001). Menard was seen by medical personnel and given pain medication and palliative treatment. X

- r a y s w e re ordered. See Banuelos v. McFarland, 41 F.3d 232, 235 (5th Cir. 1995). Menard disagrees with his treatment, but that is insufficient to establish d eliberate i n d i f f e r e nce. See Gobert v. Caldwell , 463 F.3d 339, 346 (5th Cir. 2006). Menard has not shown that the defendants violated a constitutional right. Therefore, he fails to show that the defendants were not entitled to qualified immunity

. See Lytle , 560 F.3d at 410. As Menard has not shown exceptional circumstances, we reject his request for appointment of counsel. See Cooper v. Sheriff, Lubbock Cnty., Tex., 929 F.2d 1078, 1084 (5th Cir. 1991). His motion to supplement the record is also denied. AFFIRMED; MOTIONS DENIED.

2 Case: 11-40395 Document: 00511700328 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/19/2011