* 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under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. 01-30546

Summary Calendar

ROBERT JACKSON,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

BYRD, Warden; CORRECTIONAL

CORPORATION OF AMERICA,

of Tennessee; DEPARTMENT OF

CORRECTIONS; HUBERT, Warden;

LUCAS, Chief, HASSLE, Captain;

J. BROWN; MACKEY; C. SWEARINGEN;

MYLES, Lieutenant,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 01-CV-238

September 4, 2001

Before GARWOOD, JONES and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Robert Jackson, Louisiana inmate #295276, appeals the district

court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint as frivolous.

Jackson argues that his Eighth Amendment rights were violated when2

he was denied the prescription drug “Batroban” and when prison

nurses refused to change his dressings. He further argues that he

suffered violations of his Eight h Amendment and substantive due

process rights when he was ordered to remain naked in a cold cell

for fourteen hours.

Prison officials violate the constitutional prohibition

against cruel and unusual punishment when they demonstrate

deliberate indiff erence to a prisoner’s serious medical needs,

constituting an unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain. W ilson

v. Seiter , 501 U.S. 294, 297 (1991).

The documents submitted with the complaint refute Jackson’s

allegations of deliberate indifference. Jackson was not only

treated on a continuous basis for his medical condition, but he

received medication for it as well. The fact that it was not the

medication Jackson would have liked to have received does not give

him a cognizable claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. S ee Norton v.

Dimazana

, 122 F.3d 286, 292 (5th Cir. 1997). Jackson’s allegation

that the prison nurses failed to change his dressings is also

unsupport ed by the record. The district court did not err in

dismissing Jackson’s Eighth Amendment medical treatme nt claim as

frivolous, and we affirm that part of its judgment.

If Jackson’s pleadings are given a liberal construction, see

United States v. Riascos , 76 F.3d 93, 94 (5th Cir. 1996), he has

also raised an Eighth Amendment claim insofar as he has alleged3

that seve ral of the defendants ordered him to remain naked in a

cold cell for fourteen hours in retaliation for filing a false

complaint of sexual harassment against one of the female correction

officers. This is not a facially frivolous claim. S ee Gregg v.

Georgia

, 428 U.S. 153, 173 (1976); Berry v. Brad y , 192 F.3d 504,

507 (5th Cir. 1999) (punishme nt rises to the level of “cruel and

unusual ” if it involves the wanton and unnecessary infliction of

pain). The magistrate judge did not address this allegation in his

report, and the district court did not rule on its merits. We

therefore reverse in part and remand for the district court to

address the merits of the retaliation claim. S ee Eason v. Thaler

,

14 F.3d 8, 9 & n.5 (5th Ci r. 1994) (unless p ro se prisoner’s

complaint is fantastic or delusional, he should be allowed to make

more specific allegations of his constitutional claim).

AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; REMANDED