UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

JACKIE RAY SMITH,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

No. 95-8569

WILLIAM C. DUNCIL, Warden; ROY

WHITE, Hospital Administrator;

EARNEST HART, Dr.,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Elkins.

Robert Earl Maxwell, District Judge.

(CA-95-54-2)

Submitted: October 15, 1996

Decided: November 5, 1996

Before ERVIN, HAMILTON, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Jackie Ray Smith, Appellant Pro Se. George Freeman, OFFICE OF

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, Charleston, West Virginia; Peter

Gregory Zurbuch, Bridgette Rhoden Wilson, BUSCH & TALBOTT,

Elkins, West Virginia, for Appellees.

_________________________________________________________________
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Jackie Smith, a West Virginia prisoner, appeals the district court's

order granting Defendants summary judgment and denying relief on

his complaint filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994). Smith's action

alleges that, following a skin test in 1995 which revealed that he had

been exposed to tuberculosis (TB), but did not have active TB, prison

personnel have been deliberately indifferent to his medical needs by

failing to provide him preventive medication which would help to

ensure that he does not develop active TB. The district court's order

grants the Defendants summary judgment "[f]or the reasons expressed

on the record," but we note that the record in this case contains no

transcript of the summary judgment hearing at which the court

expressed such reasons.

Because Smith has been granted in forma pauperis status, the government may provide him a free transcript if it is determined that his

appeal presents a "substantial question." See 28 U.S.C. § 753(f)

(1994). Appellants generally bear the burden of demonstrating nonfrivolity and substantiality. See Maloney v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours

& Co., 396 F.2d 939, 940 (D.C. Cir. 1967), cert. denied, 396 U.S.

1030 (1970). A "substantial question" has been held to be one that is

"reasonably debatable," Ortiz v. Greyhound Corp., 192 F. Supp. 903,

905 (D.Md. 1959), or one "where the law appears to be settled, but

where the appellant is able to show that his chances of changing the

law on appeal are strong." Lee v. Habib, 424 F.2d 891, 905 (D.C. Cir.

1970).

We conclude that Smith has failed to demonstrate a substantial

question justifying provision of a free transcript. It is apparent from

the record that the medical personnel at the prison where Smith

resides do not believe that Smith needs the treatment he seeks.

Smith's condition has been regularly monitored for any sign of active

 2
TB and, based on prison policy, such monitoring presumably will

continue. An inmate's disagreement with his physicians' prescribed

course of treatment does not state a claim under§ 1983 unless exceptional circumstances are alleged. See Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841,

849 (4th Cir. 1985). Particularly since Smith has presented no evidence tending to contradict the opinions of his physicians, we find no

exceptional circumstances in this case.

Accordingly, the order of the district court granting the Defendants

summary judgment is affirmed. In light of our disposition, we deny

Smith's motion for appointment of counsel. We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

AFFIRMED

 3