IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-30383

Summary Calendar

JEFFREY MORRIS,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

CORRECTIONS CORPORATION OF AMERICA; NURSE BRUNSON; L. 

HOBDY; MAINTENANCE OFFICER RAMSEY; DOCTOR KUPLESKY; 

DOCTOR SINGLETON; TIMOTHY KEITH; MAINTENANCE SERGEANT 

FITZHUGH; L. JONES; UNKNOWN DOCTOR; J. JENNINGS,

Defendants-Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 1:14-CV-2891

Before JOLLY, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Jeffrey Morris, Louisiana prisoner # 292975, filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 

complaint alleging that he was denied medical care in connection with an 

injury he sustained from falling into a septic tank at the Winn Correctional 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

December 29, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-30383 Document: 00513323415 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/29/2015
No. 15-30383

2

Center. Morris timely appealed the district court’s dismissal of his complaint 

for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

A district court may sua sponte dismiss a prisoner’s in forma pauperis

complaint if the action is malicious or frivolous, fails to state a claim, or seeks 

monetary relief from a defendant who is immune. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A(b), 

1915(e)(2)(B). “A dismissal of a civil rights complaint for failure to state a claim 

is reviewed de novo, using the same standard applicable to dismissals under 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).” Rogers v. Boatright, 709 F.3d 403, 

407 (5th Cir. 2013). A complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be 

granted when it does not contain “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, 

to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 

U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

The district court did not err in dismissing Morris’s action for failure to 

state a claim. Morris alleged no facts that would show that the defendants 

wantonly disregarded an excessive risk to his health prior to November 25, 

2013. See Domino v. Texas Dep’t of Criminal Justice, 239 F.3d 752, 756 (5th 

Cir. 2001). Rather, Morris’s own recitation of facts in his complaint 

demonstrates that he received almost daily treatment for his wound, including 

antibiotics, bandages, and topical ointment. Morris’s written statement of the 

incident also indicates that he received a tetanus shot. At most, Morris’s 

assertion that medical personnel should have examined his wound for foreign 

objects prior to November 25, 2013, states a claim of negligence, which does 

not amount to a claim of deliberate indifference. See Gobert v. Caldwell, 463 

F.3d 339, 346 (5th Cir. 2006). Moreover, his disagreement with the type of 

pain medication used to treat his injured hand does not amount to a claim of 

deliberate indifference. See id.

Similarly, the district court did not err in dismissing Morris’s claim that 

he was denied medical care after November 25, 2013, for the numbness to his 

 Case: 15-30383 Document: 00513323415 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/29/2015
No. 15-30383

3

hand. The district court gave Morris an opportunity to amend his complaint 

to identify the dates on which he sought and was denied treatment. Morris 

failed to do so. Before this court, Morris not only fails to identify any such 

dates, he also fails to challenge the district court’s reasons for dismissing this 

portion of his claim. Accordingly, he has abandoned it before this court. See 

Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 

1987).

Additionally, Morris reasserts his claim that Officer Ramsey and 

Sergeant Fitzhugh are liable for not providing the proper footwear, clothing, 

and training for handling biohazardous waste. As noted by the district court, 

Morris fails to specify the training he had or how the lack of training and gear 

contributed to his injury. Morris’s conclusory, one-sentence assertion, without 

supporting legal or factual analysis, does not show a constitutional violation. 

See Audler v. CBC Innovis, Inc., 519 F.3d 239, 255 (5th Cir. 2008); Oliver v. 

Scott, 276 F.3d 736, 741 (5th Cir. 2002). Similarly, Morris’s assertion that 

Corrections Corporation of America (CCA) is liable for implementing 

unconstitutional policies for its employees is also conclusory as he fails to 

identify any unconstitutional policy of CCA. See Audler, 519 F.3d at 255; 

Oliver, 276 F.3d at 741.

The district court did not err in dismissing Morris’s § 1983 complaint for 

failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. See Iqbal, 556 U.S. 

at 678. Additionally, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying 

Morris’s motion for appointment of counsel. See Cupit v. Johnson, 835 F.2d 82, 

86 (5th Cir. 1987). Morris’s motion for appointment of counsel on appeal is 

denied.

AFFIRMED; MOTION DENIED.

 Case: 15-30383 Document: 00513323415 Page: 3 Date Filed: 12/29/2015