# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or 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* Pursuant to **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  47.5.4.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: 11/28/2022No. 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 § 198 3 claim s . 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

t o 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 violat ion 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, h e must show “prison officials refused to treat him, ignored his complaints, intentionally treated him incorrectly, or e ngaged 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 , whi ch 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 hi s allegations of deliberate indifference. See Ba nuelos 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 34 6. And his bare allegations , without additional support, do not create Case: 21-30770 Document: 00516558458 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/28/2022No. 21

- 30770

3 cognizable § 1983 claim s. 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 V arnado , 920 F.2d at 321

.

In sum, the district court correctly concluded that Adam s 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 re file
in state court.
The judg ment of the district court is **AFFIRMED**

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