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

No. 12-10062 Summary Calendar

ANTWON PARKER, Plaintiff - Appellant

v. KIMBERLY FISK, Physician Assistant; MR. NFN MARKEZ, Extortion Officer, Defendants - Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 2:11-CV-116

Before BARKSDALE, CLEMENT, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Antwon Parker, Texas prisoner # 1311517, proceeding pro se and in forma
p a u p e r is , c h all e n ge s th e f

ailure-to-state-a-claim dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1 9 8 3 civil-rights action. Parker contends: Fisk failed to respond to his medical needs; she retaliated against him for complaining about h e r ; and, post-judgment, he should have been allowed to amend his complaint. After accepting plaintiff’s factual allegations as true, i f n o relief can be granted as a matter of law, an action may be dismissed. Harris v. Hegmann , 198 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 August 22, 20 12 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: 12-10062 Document: 00511965841 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/22/2012No. 12-10062

F.3d 153, 156 (5th Cir. 1999). To establish a claim of u n c onstitutional medical
care, Parker must show Fisk acted with delibe r ate indifference to his serious medical n e e ds. See Gobert v. Caldwell , 463 F.3d 339, 345-46 (5th Cir. 2006). Parker’s pleadings reflect that he receive d f r e qu e nt and responsive medical care. He concedes he was given a bottom bunk a n d has not been required to work. Though he was not given the bottom-row cell restriction he requested, he was provided medication and other restrictions. Parker’s claims about the care and attention provided by Fisk show mer e l y a d i sagreement about what care was proper. Such allegations do not state a claim of deliberate indifference. See id. at 346. I n c l ai m i n g Fi s k r e t ali at ed against him, Parker contends Fisk hin d e r e d hi s efforts to obtain medical r e c o r d s and temporarily discontinued his pain medication. Obviously, prison officials may not retaliate against an inmate for exercising the right to complain about misconduct or to gain access to the courts. Woods v. Smith , 60 F.3d 1161, 1164 (5th Cir. 1995). Understandably, our court

r e g a r d s such retaliation claims “with skepticism”. Id. at 1166. Parker’ s pleadings indicate that prison officials responded to his record requests and do not allege specific facts to show that Fisk was responsible for any delay in record
p r o du c ti o n . And, Parker’s expressions of annoyance with the prison b ur e au c r ac y do not constitute specific factual allegations showing he was denied his medical records as a result of an unconstitutional motive. See id. Concerning the two-month denial of pain medication, the pleadings reflect that Fisk had offered to give Parker new pain medications but that Parker only

s o u ght the bottom-row restriction. The pleadings also reflect that prison o f f i c i al s believed Parker had refused pain medications. Moreover, Parker alleged no specific fact that would show Fisk was personally responsible for discontinuing such medication or that she refused to reorder it. In short, Parker’s allegations, if true, do not establish that the interruption in his pain medication arose from retaliation or any other unconstitutional motivation.
2 Case: 12-10062 Document: 00511965841 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/22/2012No. 12-10062

Our court r e views for abuse of discretion the district court’s denial of Parker’s post-judgment motion to amend; the denial will stand if Parker “has not clearly established that he could not reasonably h a ve raised the new matter prior to the trial court’s merits ruling”. Vielma v. Eureka Co. , 218 F.3d 458, 468 (5th Cir. 2000). Parker fails to show he could not have amended his complaint before dismissal. Moreover, his proposed a m e n d ed complaint is virtually i n d istinguishable from his original complaint; therefore it would have be e n futile. Finally, o u r c o n s i d e r ati o n o f Parker’s claims against Markez–and Parker’s challenge to the severan c e o f t hose claims–is barred by the final disposition of those claims in Parker v. Markez , No. 2:11-CV-285 (N.D. Tex. 9 Jan 2012), and Parker v. Markez , No. 12-10047 (5th Cir. 8 Feb. 2012 ) (dismissing appeal). AFFIRMED.

3 Case: 12-10062 Document: 00511965841 Page: 3 Date Filed: 08/22/2012