United States Court of Appeals

for 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. 

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances 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 Circuit Rule 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: 02/11/2021
No. 20-40253

2

Jowers, 404 F.3d 371, 373 (5th Cir. 2005). We 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 Nurse 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 doctors 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, 535 (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. Dimazana, 122 F.3d 286, 292 (5th Cir. 1997). 

Liberally construed, the pleadings further assert that Hall and Alvarado acted with deliberate indifference to complaints Wyre raised after the 

restrictions were removed. Those allegations fail because, even accepted as 

true, they establish only that Wyre received ineffective or substandard care, 

not that any defendant evinced a “wanton disregard” for serious 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. Allegations that Joseph Bush and Neil Turner disregarded one or more complaints Wyre made while working under their supervision 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 negligent 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: 02/11/2021
No. 20-40253

3

he fails to state a claim against Owen Murray, Mark Roberts, Bobby Cooper, 

Jr., or Nina Lane because he has not alleged their personal involvement in a 

constitutional deprivation. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 676 (2009)

(noting that a § 1983 plaintiff “must plead that each Government-official 

defendant, through the official’s own individual actions, has violated the 

Constitution”). 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 deprivation. See Thompkins v. Belt, 828 F.2d 298, 304 (5th Cir. 1987). Finally, 

by not addressing the district court’s conclusion that Eleventh Amendment 

immunity applies to UTMB and to the individual defendants in their official 

capacities, Wyre abandoned any challenge to that ruling. See Mapes v. Bishop, 

541 F.3d 582, 584 (5th Cir. 2008).

The judgment is AFFIRMED. The district court’s dismissal of 

Wyre’s action counts as a strike under § 1915(g). See Lomax v. OrtizMarquez, 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