# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or the Fifth Circuit** 

No. 20

- 40253 Summary Calendar

**Stevie Wyre,**
Plaintiff

— Appellant **,**

versus
**UTMB; Owen J. Murray; Theodore Hall; Mark Roberts; Joseph M. Bush; Neil A. Turner; Bobby R. Cooper, Jr.;**  **Melanie E. Alvarado; Nina G. Lane,**
Defendants

— Appellees

**.**

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas No. 9 :17

- CV

- 7

Before **King, Smith,** and **Wilson,** Circuit Judges

**. Per Curiam**  **:** * Stevie Wyre, Texas prisoner #1858012, appeals the dismissal of his
42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights action as frivolous and for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (i)

- (ii)

. Our review is de novo

. See Geiger v.

* Pursu ant to **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  47.5, the court has determined that this opin

ion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED February 11, 2021 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 20-40253 Document: 00515742634 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/11/2021No. 20

- 40253

2 Jo w e r s , 404 F.3d 371, 373 (5th Cir. 2005). W e affirm.

Wyre alleges deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs based on the removal of certain medical restrictions on his work and housing assignments

. See Farmer v. Brennan , 511 U.S. 825, 834

− 40 (1994) (setting forth the standard for claims of deliberate indifference). He acknowledges that Dr. Theodore Hall and N urse Melanie Alvarado examined him and determined the restrictions were not needed. Although Wyre maintains that that determination is at odds with the views of the doctor s who imposed the restrictions, a difference of opinion as to appropriate treatment does not establish deliberate indifference. See Gobert v. Caldwell , 463 F.3d 339, 349
n.32 (5th Cir. 2006) ; Stewart v. Murphy , 174 F.3d 530, 53 5 (5th Cir. 1999)

. Nor , absent exceptional circumstances, does a patient’s own disagreement with the treatment he receives. See Gobert , 463 F.3d at 346 ; Norton v. Dima

zana , 122 F.3d 286, 292 (5th Cir. 1997). Liberally construed, the pleadings further assert that Hall and Alva

rado acted with deliberate indif ference to complaints Wyre raised after the restrictions were removed. Th o se allegations fail because, even accept ed as true, they establish only that Wyre received ineffective or substandard care , not that any defendant evinced a “wanton disregard” for s erious medical needs. Domino v. Tex. Dep’t of Criminal Justice , 239 F.3d 752, 756 (5th Cir. 2001) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); see also Gobert , 463 F.3d at 346 , 349 . A llegation s that Joseph Bush and Neil Turner disre

garded one or more complaints Wyre made while working under their super

vision are equally unavailing , given that Wyre does not allege facts showing that either was aware of a serious medical need. See Reeves v. Collins , 27 F.3d 174, 176

− 77 (5th Cir. 1994) (concluding that officials were no more than negli

gent in disregarding plaintiff’s assertions of pain). Wyre has also shown no error in the district court’s determination that Case: 20-40253 Document: 00515742634 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/11/2021No. 20

- 40253

3 he fail s to state a claim against Owen Murray, Mark Roberts, Bobby Cooper, Jr., or Nina Lan e because he has not alleged their personal involvement in a constitutional deprivation. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal , 556 U.S. 662, 67 6 (2009) ( not ing that a § 1983 plaintiff “ must plead that each Government

- official defen dant, through the official’s own indi vidual actions, has violated the Con stitution” ). To the extent that Wyre suggests that either Murray or Roberts is liable as a supervisor, his claims fail because he does not allege facts showing a causal connection between their conduct and a constitutional dep

ri va tion. See Thompkins v. Belt , 828 F.2d 298, 304 (5th Cir. 1987). Finally, by not addressing the district court’s conclusion that Eleventh Amend ment immunity applie s to UTMB and to the individual defendants in their official
capac ities, Wyre abandoned any challenge to that ruling

. See Mapes v. Bishop , 541 F.3d 582, 584 (5th Cir. 2008)

. The judgment is **AFFIRM ED** 

. The district court’s dismissal of Wyre’s action counts as a strike under § 1915(g). See Lomax v. Ortiz

Marquez , 140 S. Ct. 1721, 1724

− 25 (2020) ; Adepegba v. Hammons , 103 F.3d 383, 387 (5th Cir. 1996), abrogated in part on other grounds by Coleman v. Tollefson , 135 S. Ct. 1759, 1762

− 63 (2015). Wyre is **WARNED** that, if he accumulates three strikes, he may not proceed in forma pauperis in any civil action or appeal filed while he is incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. See § 1915(g). Case: 20-40253 Document: 00515742634 Page: 3 Date Filed: 02/11/2021