United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 21-30770

Summary Calendar

Kenny Adams, 

Plaintiff—Appellant,

versus

Bruce Fuller; Pamela Hearns, 

Defendants—Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 1:17-cv-1110

Before Jones, Haynes, and Oldham, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Kenny Adams, Louisiana inmate # 336245, sued multiple Louisiana 

state healthcare providers for violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Louisiana 

negligence law. The defendants sought summary judgment on the § 1983 

claims and a motion for judgment on the pleadings on the state law claims. 

* 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited 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

November 28, 2022

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 21-30770 Document: 00516558458 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/28/2022
No. 21-30770

2

The district court granted both in favor of the defendants and dismissed the 

claims. Adams appeals both determinations. But he cannot prevail.

First, the dismissal of the § 1983 claims. We review the grant of 

summary judgment de novo. Data Mktg. P’ship LP, v. U.S. Dep’t of Lab., 45 

F.4th 846, 853 (5th Cir. 2022). Summary judgment is warranted where 

“there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled 

to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a).

Adams argues the healthcare providers were deliberately indifferent 

to his medical needs in violation of his Eighth Amendment rights. He claims 

he received inadequate treatment for a tumor in his ear, infected finger, colon 

and kidney conditions, high blood pressure, and dizziness. To bring a 

successful deliberate indifference claim, he must show “prison officials 

refused to treat him, ignored his complaints, intentionally treated him 

incorrectly, or engaged in any similar conduct that would clearly evince a 

wanton disregard for any serious medical needs.” See Gobert v. Caldwell, 463 

F.3d 339, 346 (5th Cir. 2006) (quotation omitted). This is “an extremely high 

standard.” Ibid. (quotation omitted). He can’t meet it. 

For his ear problems, Adams primarily argues he should have received 

a bone anchored hearing aid implantation. But this amounts to a 

disagreement with his medical care, which is insufficient to support a claim 

of deliberate indifference. See ibid. And the medical records are replete with 

notes of sick calls, examinations, and diagnoses related to his ear, which

further rebut his allegations of deliberate indifference. See Banuelos v. 

McFarland, 41 F.3d 232, 235 (5th Cir. 1995).

As to his finger infection, high blood pressure, and dizziness, he 

conceded that he received care. His disagreement with that treatment is 

insufficient to support a claim of deliberate indifference. See Gobert, 463 F.3d 

at 346. And his bare allegations, without additional support, do not create

Case: 21-30770 Document: 00516558458 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/28/2022
No. 21-30770

3

cognizable § 1983 claims. See Varnado v. Lynaugh, 920 F.2d 320, 321 (5th Cir. 

1991). 

Finally, his “conclusory allegations” and “unsubstantiated 

assertions” of deliberate indifference by the providers in treating his kidney 

and colon conditions are also insufficient to create a dispute of material fact. 

Freeman v. Tex. Dep’t of Crim. Just., 369 F.3d 854, 860 (5th Cir. 2004); see 

also Varnado, 920 F.2d at 321. 

In sum, the district court correctly concluded that Adams failed to 

produce a “genuine dispute as to any material fact” and the healthcare 

providers were “entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 

56(a).

Second, Adams argues that the district court erred in granting the 

healthcare providers’ Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c) motion for 

judgment on the pleadings and dismissing his state law claims upon finding

the State of Louisiana was a necessary party to the litigation. But we need not 

reach this issue because the district court also recognized its authority under 

28 U.S.C. § 1367 to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims 

and declined to do so. See id. § 1367(c); Davis v. Scott, 157 F.3d 1003, 1005 

(5th Cir. 1998) (“[T]his court may affirm a judgment upon any basis 

supported by the record.”). The district court has wide discretion to dismiss

state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c); Manyweather v. Woodlawn Manor, 

Inc., 40 F.4th 237, 246 (5th Cir. 2022). And Adams fails to show that the 

district court abused its discretion in dismissing these claims. Moreover, the 

district court dismissed these claims without prejudice, so Adams can refile 

in state court. 

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

Case: 21-30770 Document: 00516558458 Page: 3 Date Filed: 11/28/2022