IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-30475

Summary Calendar

CORNELIUS LORENZO WILSON,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

DENNIS GRIMES, Lieutenant Colonel; SID J. GAUTREAUX, III, Sheriff; 

LINDA OTTESEN; CITY OF BATON ROUGE/PARISH OF EAST BATON 

ROUGE CONSOLIDATED GOVERNMENT; JAMES M. LEBLANC; ROBERT 

TANNER; TIMOTHY HOOPER; ABC INSURANCE COMPANIES; RAMAN 

SINGH, Doctor; TAMRYA YOUNG; KAREN COMEAUX; OTHER AS YET 

UNKNOWN DEFENDANTS,

Defendants-Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Louisiana

USDC No. 3:15-CV-680

Before SMITH, WIENER, and WILLETT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Plaintiff-Appellant Cornelius Lorenzo Wilson, Louisiana prisoner 

#356241, filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 lawsuit against, inter alia, Sheriff Sid J. 

Gautreaux, III, Lieutenant Colonel Dennis Grimes, Linda Ottesen, Raman 

 

* 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

May 15, 2019

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 18-30475 Document: 00514958476 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/15/2019
No. 18-30475

2

Singh, M.D., Tamyra Young, and Karen Comeaux, alleging that they were 

liable under the Eighth Amendment for denying him timely access to a medical 

specialist during his confinement in the East Baton Rouge Parish Prison 

(EBRPP) and various facilities overseen by the Louisiana Department of 

Safety and Corrections (DOC), which resulted in the late diagnosis and 

treatment of his throat cancer and required him to undergo a laryngectomy. 

He further alleged that Grimes and Ottesen, acting in their official capacities,

were responsible under Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 690 (1978), 

for establishing policies or practices that denied him access to constitutionally 

adequate care. The district court granted the defendants’ motions to dismiss 

pursuant to Federal Rule of Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim on 

the grounds that the allegations in Wilson’s second amended complaint failed 

to state a plausible claim that any of the defendants were deliberately 

indifferent to his serious medical needs or to defeat the defendants’ assertions

of qualified immunity. Wilson now appeals the dismissal of his claims and the 

district court’s denial of his request to file a third amended complaint.

Our de novo review of Wilson’s second amended complaint, which was 

prepared by counsel, confirms that the district court correctly concluded that 

his factual allegations, taken as true, complain of the delay in providing access 

to a medical specialist rather than the denial of medical care and, therefore,

effectively constitute only a disagreement with his medical treatment. See 

Mendoza v. Lynaugh, 989 F.2d 191, 195 (5th Cir. 1993). Accordingly, Wilson’s 

complaint failed to state a facially plausible claim that any defendant was 

deliberately indifferent to a serious medical need. See Thomas v. Chevron 

U.S.A., Inc., 832 F.3d 586, 590 (5th Cir. 2016); Alderson v. Concordia Par. Corr. 

Facility, 848 F.3d 415, 421-22 (5th Cir. 2017); Gobert v. Caldwell, 463 F.3d 339, 

345-46 (5th Cir. 2006). Further, the district court did not err in dismissing 

 Case: 18-30475 Document: 00514958476 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/15/2019
No. 18-30475

3

claims against Grimes and Ottesen in their individual capacities on the basis 

of qualified immunity based on Wilson’s failure to adequately allege a 

constitutional violation. See Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 231 (2009). 

Because Wilson failed to sufficiently allege that his constitutional rights were 

violated while he was confined at the East Baton Rouge Parish Prison, his 

official capacity claims against Grimes and Ottesen also were properly 

dismissed. See Connick v. Thompson, 563 U.S. 51, 60 (2011); Zarnow v. City 

of Wichita Falls, 614 F.3d 161, 166 (5th Cir. 2010). Because Wilson fails to 

brief whether Singh, Young, and Comeaux were correctly dismissed on the 

basis of qualified immunity, he has waived his challenge to that determination. 

See Am. States Ins. Co. v. Bailey, 133 F.3d 363, 372 (5th Cir. 1998); Beasley v. 

McCotter, 798 F.2d 116, 118 (5th Cir. 1986).

As the district court observed, Wilson’s two counseled complaints were 

highly detailed. They also were prepared by counsel after Wilson obtained his

EBRPP and DOC medical records, and Wilson identifies no additional factual 

allegations that would cure the pleading deficiencies in his second amended 

complaint. Accordingly, the district court’s denial of Wilson’s request to file a 

third amended complaint was not erroneous. See Brown v. Taylor, 911 F.3d 

235, 247 (5th Cir. 2018); Thomas, 832 F.3d at 590.

AFFIRMED.

 Case: 18-30475 Document: 00514958476 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/15/2019