### 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 , Defendant s
- Appellee s

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

* 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 R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR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. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED December 29, 2015 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 15-30383 Document: 00513323415 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/29/2015No. 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 clai m, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A(b), 1915(e)(2)(B ). “A dismis sal 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 c itation omitted)

. The district court did not err in dismissing Morris’s action for failure to state a claim. Morris allege d no facts that would show that the defendants wantonly disregarded an excessive risk to his health prior to November 25,
2013. S ee 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
demonstrate s that he received almost daily treatment for his wound, including antibiotics, bandages, and topical oin tment. 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 negligen ce, 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
deliberat e 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: 12/29/2015No. 15

- 30383

3 hand. The district court gave Morris an opportunity to amend his compl a i nt
to identify the dates on which he sought and was denied treatment. Morris failed to do so. Before this court, M orris 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 t he 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
contri buted to his injury. Morris’s conclusory, one

- sentence asse rtion, 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. 200 8); 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 a s he fails to identify any unconstitutional policy of CCA. See Audler , 519 F.3d at 255; Oliver , 276 F.3d at 741.
The distr ict court d id 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 i ts discretion in denying
Morris ’s motion for appointm ent of counsel. See Cupit v. Johnson , 835 F.2d 82, 86 (5th Cir. 1987). Morris ’s motion for ap pointment of counsel on appeal is
denied. AFFIRMED; MOTION DENIED. Case: 15-30383 Document: 00513323415 Page: 3 Date Filed: 12/29/2015