IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-11135

Summary Calendar

TRAVIS HUNTER BLANK,

Plaintiff - Appellant

v.

R.N. LINDA BELL,

Defendant - Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:11-CV-1327

Before BARKSDALE, CLEMENT, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Travis Hunter Blank, federal prisoner # 16486-078, filed a 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983 complaint against Linda Bell, a nurse at the Rockwall County Jail, 

alleging she was deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs (Crohn’s 

disease and a preexisting neck injury), while he was a pretrial detainee at the 

jail. The district court granted Nurse Bell’s motion for summary judgment on 

the basis of qualified immunity. 

 

* 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 19, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 14-11135 Document: 00513347080 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/19/2016
No. 14-11135

2

Although he had assistance of counsel in district court, Blank proceeds 

pro se on appeal. In challenging the summary judgment against four of his 

deliberate-indifference claims, Blank asserts Nurse Bell wrongfully: denied or 

delayed his requests to see Dr. Sandknop, the jail medical officer, for treatment 

of his Crohn’s disease; refused to comply with hospital discharge instructions 

that he be seen by a specialist or outside doctor for that disease; failed to 

administer a special diet for that disease as allegedly ordered by Dr. Sandknop;

and, deprived him narcotic pain medication for his neck injury. (Blank made 

other claims against Bell; but, he briefs only the four above-described claims 

on appeal. Accordingly, Blank is deemed to have abandoned the unbriefed 

claims. E.g., Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224–25 (5th Cir. 1993).) For each 

of his four claims, Blank fails to establish the requisite genuine dispute of 

material fact, as discussed below. 

A summary judgment is reviewed de novo, applying the same standards 

as the district court. Hernandez v. Yellow Transp., Inc., 670 F.3d 644, 650 (5th 

Cir. 2012). Summary judgment is proper “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). To defeat summary judgment, the 

nonmovant must set forth specific facts showing the existence of a genuine 

dispute for trial. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1). All facts and reasonable inferences 

must be construed in favor of the nonmovant, and the court must not weigh 

evidence or determine credibility. Deville v. Marcantel, 567 F.3d 156, 163–64 

(5th Cir. 2009). 

Upon an invocation of qualified immunity, however, “the usual summary 

judgment burden of proof is altered”. Michalik v. Hermann, 422 F.3d 252, 262 

(5th Cir. 2005). Blank may not “rest on conclusory allegations and assertions” 

and “must demonstrate genuine [disputes] of material fact regarding the 

 Case: 14-11135 Document: 00513347080 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/19/2016
No. 14-11135

3

reasonableness of [Nurse Bell’s] conduct”. Id. On the other hand, facts and 

reasonable inferences are still construed in Blank’s favor. Tolan v. Cotton, 134 

S. Ct. 1861, 1866 (2014).

The qualified immunity defense protects “all but the plainly incompetent 

or those who knowingly violate the law”. Malley v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335, 341 

(1986). To defeat the defense of qualified immunity, Blank must plead facts to 

show: a violation of a constitutional or statutory right; and, in the light of 

clearly established law, Nurse Bell’s conduct was objectively unreasonable. 

E.g., Short v. West, 662 F.3d 320, 325 (5th Cir. 2011). 

Concerning the first prong of the qualified immunity analysis, violation 

of a constitutional or statutory right, all of Blank’s contentions rest on Nurse 

Bell’s alleged deliberate indifference to his need for medical care. “A pretrial 

detainee’s constitutional right to medical care, whether in prison or other 

custody, flows from the . . . due process guarantees of the Fourteenth 

Amendment.” Wagner v. Bay City, Tex., 227 F.3d 316, 324 (5th Cir. 2000). 

“Liability for failing to provide such care attaches if [Blank] can show that a 

state official acted with deliberate indifference to a substantial risk of serious 

medical harm and that injuries resulted.” Id.

“‘Deliberate indifference’ requires that the official have subjective

knowledge of the risk of harm.” Id. (emphasis in original). Therefore, Blank 

must demonstrate a genuine dispute of material fact that: Nurse Bell “had 

subjective knowledge of facts from which an inference of substantial risk of 

serious harm could be drawn”; she “drew that inference”; and her “response to 

the risk indicates [she] subjectively intended that harm occur”. Tamez v. 

Manthey, 589 F.3d 764, 770 (5th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks omitted). 

In other words, Blank must demonstrate a genuine dispute of material fact 

that Nurse Bell “refused to treat him, ignored his complaints, intentionally 

 Case: 14-11135 Document: 00513347080 Page: 3 Date Filed: 01/19/2016
No. 14-11135

4

treated him incorrectly, or engaged in any similar conduct that would clearly 

evince a wanton disregard for any serious medical needs”. Domino v. Tex. Dep’t 

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

Along that line, neither an incorrect diagnosis nor the failure to alleviate 

a significant risk that should have been perceived, but was not, is sufficient to 

establish deliberate indifference. Id. 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. Gobert v. Caldwell, 463 F.3d 339, 346 (5th Cir. 

2006). Moreover, a delay in treatment is not unconstitutional, unless there has 

been deliberate indifference that results in substantial harm. See Mendoza v. 

Lynaugh, 989 F.2d 191, 195 (5th Cir. 1993). In short, “[d]eliberate indifference 

is an extremely high standard to meet”. Domino, 239 F.3d at 756. 

First, Blank asserts the court erred in granting summary judgment 

against his claim that Nurse Bell impermissibly delayed or denied his access 

to Dr. Sandknop. Blank contends the evidence showed Nurse Bell failed to 

contact Dr. Sandknop about the deterioration of his Crohn’s condition for long 

periods of time.

Blank points to no evidence in the record to substantiate that belief. At 

his deposition, he admitted he did not have any evidence that Nurse Bell kept 

him from seeing Dr. Sandknop. A party may not rely upon unsubstantiated or 

conclusory assertions. Morris v. Covan World Wide Moving, Inc., 144 F.3d 377, 

380 (5th Cir. 1998). Dr. Sandknop attested that Nurse Bell did not interfere 

with his treatment of Blank and he was unaware that anyone at the jail, 

including Nurse Bell, failed to comply with any of his orders relating to Blank’s 

treatment. Contrary to Blank’s assertion, and as noted above, the court was 

not required to assume that his unsubstantiated allegations regarding his 

 Case: 14-11135 Document: 00513347080 Page: 4 Date Filed: 01/19/2016
No. 14-11135

5

access to Dr. Sandknop were true. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e); Pioneer Expl., 

L.L.C. v. Steadfast Ins. Co., 767 F.3d 503, 511 (5th Cir. 2014).

Blank’s desire to see Dr. Sandknop more often amounts to a disagreement over his treatment, which, as discussed supra, does not rise to the level 

of deliberate indifference. See Gobert, 463 F.3d at 346. Even if Blank could 

show he should have seen Dr. Sandknop more, and Nurse Bell was aware of 

that need, but denied or delayed access, at best, he alleges medical malpractice 

or negligence, which, as stated supra, are insufficient to establish a 

constitutional violation. Id. 

Second, Blank contends the court erred in granting summary judgment 

against his claim that Nurse Bell denied him access to a specialist. He relies 

heavily upon the fact that, following his three hospitalizations, his discharge 

instructions directed he see a specialist or other outside private general 

practitioner. Blank asserts the evidence shows Nurse Bell consciously chose 

to ignore the hospital-discharge instructions in that regard.

Although the intentional failure to schedule an appointment with a 

specialist may amount to deliberate indifference when it causes substantial 

harm, the negligent failure to schedule an appointment does not. See, e.g., 

Carrothers v. Kelly, 312 F. App’x 600, 602–03 (5th Cir. 2009) (unpublished); 

Stewart v. Murphy, 174 F.3d 530, 534 (5th Cir. 1999). The undisputed evidence 

showed that, when a person incarcerated at the jail returned from the hospital 

with discharge instructions directing he see an outside doctor or specialist, the 

decision to make the referral remained with Dr. Sandknop. Blank does not 

contest that, following each of his hospitalizations, Dr. Sandknop either saw 

him personally or prescribed the medications indicated on the discharge 

instructions. Blank’s allegation he should have been seen by a specialist

amounts to a disagreement about his course of medical treatment or 

 Case: 14-11135 Document: 00513347080 Page: 5 Date Filed: 01/19/2016
No. 14-11135

6

negligence, which, again, is not actionable. See Gobert, 463 F.3d at 346. 

Moreover, a decision not to prescribe treatment recommended by an outside 

physician does not constitute deliberate indifference. See, e.g., Stewart, 174 

F.3d at 535. 

Third, Blank maintains Nurse Bell was deliberately indifferent to his 

serious medical needs when she disregarded Dr. Sandknop’s direct order that 

he be given a special diet (the avoidance of spicy and fried foods). “Prison 

officials have a constitutional obligation to provide reasonably adequate food” 

to inmates. Eason v. Thaler, 14 F.3d 8, 10 (5th Cir. 1994). 

Although Blank may have interpreted Dr. Sandknop’s statement that he 

should “avoid” spicy and fried foods as a medical order, no such written order 

appears in the record. Blank did not challenge Dr. Sandknop’s statement that, 

if he ordered a special diet, it would have been included in the progress notes. 

Further, Nurse Bell did not recall discussing a special diet with Dr. Sandknop 

at any time. Blank’s unsubstantiated and subjective belief that Dr. Sandknop 

ordered a special diet is insufficient. See Morris, 144 F.3d at 380. 

Blank’s unsupported assertion that “special diets are required” for 

Crohn’s patients and that Bell’s failure to administer such a diet supports a 

finding of deliberate indifference similarly fails. Dr. Sandknop stated there 

were no medically specialized diets for Crohn’s patients, and Blank did not 

challenge this assertion. To the extent he maintains a special diet should have 

been ordered, such a contention amounts to a disagreement with the course of 

his medical treatment and, again, is not actionable. See Gobert, 463 F.3d at 

346.

In addition, the evidence indicated that, when Nurse Bell learned Blank 

began rejecting his food, she went to great lengths to provide him with 

alternative nutrients and made requests for specialized food trays. Blank fails

 Case: 14-11135 Document: 00513347080 Page: 6 Date Filed: 01/19/2016
No. 14-11135

7

to demonstrate that Nurse Bell intentionally delayed or denied him access to 

proper nutrition or otherwise engaged in any conduct that indicated “a wanton 

disregard for any serious medical needs”. Domino, 239 F.3d at 756.

Fourth, and finally, Blank maintains the court erred in granting 

summary judgment against his claim that Bell was deliberately indifferent to 

his alleged neck injury; specifically, her failure to provide a narcotic painkiller. 

The record showed Nurse Bell did not have the authority to prescribe 

medications, and it was in Dr. Sandknop’s discretion whether to follow any 

medication prescriptions in Blank’s hospital-discharge instructions. 

Accordingly, Blank fails to show Nurse Bell acted with deliberate indifference. 

See id. 

AFFIRMED.

 Case: 14-11135 Document: 00513347080 Page: 7 Date Filed: 01/19/2016