* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR
. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR
. R. 47.5.4. 

### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-10062 Summary Calendar SHELBY WAYNE FIFE Plaintiff-Appellant

v. NFN HENSLEY, Health and Medical Administrator; SHANE MARTINEZ, Health and Medical Administrator; BEN LUONG, Physician-Medical Director, Preston E. Smith Unit Defendants-Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 5:06-CV-203
Before WIENER, STEWART, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Plaintiff-Appellant Shelby Wayne Fife, formerly Texas prisoner # 1039740, appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment for the defendants and dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. Fife alleged that the defendants
were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs following an allegedly botched surgery on his left foot. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D February 12, 2009 Charles R. Fulbruge III ClerkNo. 08-10062

2 As an initial matter, Fife’s motion to supplement the record on appeal is denied. See United States v. Flores, 887 F.2d 543, 546 (5th Cir. 1989). The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Fife’s motion tosupplement his complaint with claims of retaliation and harassment by the defendants, so
we too decline to consider these claims in this appeal. See Burnsv. Exxon Corp., 158 F.3d 336, 343 (5th Cir. 1998); Leve rette v. Louisville Ladder Co., 183 F.3d 339, 342 (5th Cir. 1999) We review the grant of a motion for summary judgment de novo. Threadgill v. Prudential Sec. Group, Inc., 145 F .3d 286, 292 (5th Cir. 1998). Summary judgment is appropriate if the record discloses “that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” F ED
. R. C IV
. P. 56(c). Prison officials violate the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment when they demonstrate deliberate indifference to a prisoner’s serious medical needs, constituting an “unnecessary and wanton infliction ofpain.” Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 297 (1991) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). A prison official acts with deliberate indifference if he “knows of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate health or safety; the official must both be aware offactsfrom which the inference could be drawn that
a substantial risk ofserious harm exists, and he must also draw the inference.” Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994). A mere disagreement with one’s medical treatment is not suf f icient to state a cause of action under § 1983. Varnado v. Lynaugh, 920 F.2d 320, 321 (5th Cir. 1991). Further, unsuccessful medical treatment, negligence, or medical malpractice are insufficient to give rise to a claim of deliberate indifference. Id. The district court did not err in granting summary judgment because Hensley and Martinez were not deliberately indifferent: Fife received surgery
on both ofhis feet; he was referred for evaluation ofa possible corrective second surgery for his left foot; heobtained custom orthopedicshoes to help alleviate hisNo. 08-10062

3 condition; he was seen by the medical department personnel on numerous occasions; and he received various pain medications. Given the extremely limited authority of Hensley and Martinez to affect patient care directly, their actions do not show they acted with deliberate indifference to Fife’s serious medical needs. Neither did the district court err when it granted summary judgment in favor ofDr. Luong because he was not deliberately indifferent either. Dr. Luong
saw Fife on a number of occasions and prescribed various medications for him. Although Dr. Luong did not immediately refer Fife for corrective surgery and initially refused to grant Fife a pass to wear his orthopedic shoes, the records indicate that Dr. Luongjustified his decisions on the basis of medical necessity. Furthermore, Dr. Luong did eventually refer Fife for evaluation of possible corrective surgery. To the extent that Dr. Luong’s medical opinions differed from those of Fife or other medical providers, such a difference of opinion does not give rise to a claim of deli berate indifference. See Varnado, 920 F.2d at 321; Gobert v. Caldwell, 463 F.3d 339, 350 n. 32 (5th Cir. 2006). AFFIRMED; MOTION DENIED.