UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-6293

WILLIE J. JACKSON,

 Plaintiff – Appellant,

v.

DOCTOR DONALD SAMPSON; DOCTOR STEEN; WARDEN STEVENSON,

 Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Greenville. Terry L. Wooten, Chief District 

Judge. (6:12-cv-00231-TLW)

Submitted: July 16, 2013 Decided: July 30, 2013

Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Willie J. Jackson, Appellant Pro Se. Tracy S. Dubey, James E. 

Parham, Jr., JAMES E. PARHAM JR. LAW OFFICE, Irmo, South 

Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Willie Jackson, a South Carolina inmate, appeals the 

district court order granting summary judgment in favor of 

Defendants on Jackson’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) action. Jackson 

alleged that Defendants—medical staff and the warden of the 

correctional institution where he is housed—were deliberately 

indifferent to his serious medical needs and violated equal 

protection by delaying and ultimately denying requested 

treatment for his diagnosed disease. For the reasons that 

follow, we affirm.

On appeal, Jackson primarily asserts that the district 

court erred in granting summary judgment on his deliberate 

indifference claim. He alleges that the court improperly 

applied the summary judgment standard and failed to recognize 

genuine issues of material fact regarding Defendants’ knowing 

denial of treatment and failure to follow institutional policies 

mandating additional treatment.

We review de novo a district court’s grant of summary 

judgment, viewing the facts and drawing reasonable inferences in 

the light most favorable to the non-moving party. PBM Prods., 

LLC v. Mead Johnson & Co., 639 F.3d 111, 119 (4th Cir. 2011). 

Summary judgment is appropriate “if the movant shows that there 

is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is 

entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 
3

56(a). When a motion for summary judgment is properly made and 

supported, the non-moving party may not rely merely on 

allegations but must respond with competent evidence showing a 

genuine issue for trial. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c); Thompson v. 

Potomac Elec. Power Co., 312 F.3d 645, 649 (4th Cir. 2002). 

“Conclusory or speculative allegations do not suffice, nor does 

a mere scintilla of evidence in support of [the non-moving 

party’s] case.” Thompson, 312 F.3d at 649 (internal quotation 

marks omitted).

The Eighth Amendment prohibits prison officials from 

acting with deliberate indifference to a prisoner’s serious 

medical needs. See Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976). 

To establish deliberate indifference, an inmate must allege both 

that he experienced a deprivation that was “objectively 

sufficiently serious” and “that subjectively the officials acted 

with a sufficiently culpable state of mind.” De’Lonta v. 

Angelone, 330 F.3d 630, 634 (4th Cir. 2003) (internal quotation 

marks, alteration, and emphasis omitted). Negligence or medical 

malpractice will not establish a sufficiently culpable state of 

mind. Id. at 634; Grayson v. Peed, 195 F.3d 692, 695 (4th Cir. 

1999). Instead, a constitutional violation does not occur 

unless the medical provider’s actions were “so grossly 

incompetent, inadequate, or excessive as to shock the conscience 

or to be intolerable to fundamental fairness.” Miltier v. 
4

Beorn, 896 F.2d 848, 851 (4th Cir. 1990), overruled in part on 

other grounds by Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994). 

An inmate’s mere disagreement with the course of treatment 

provided by medical officers will not support a valid Eighth 

Amendment claim. Russell v. Sheffer, 528 F.2d 318, 319 (4th 

Cir. 1975).

Viewed in the light most favorable to Jackson, the 

record creates no genuine issue of material fact to support his 

deliberate indifference claim. There is simply no evidence in 

the record that Jackson was denied necessary treatment or that 

any delay in treatment was the result of deliberate indifference 

by Defendants. See Estelle, 429 U.S. at 105-06 (“[A]n 

inadvertent failure to provide adequate medical care cannot be 

said to constitute ‘an unnecessary and wanton infliction of 

pain’ or to be ‘repugnant to the conscience of mankind.’”). 

Jackson’s dispute with Defendants’ decision not to authorize the 

particular treatment program he requested, and the subsequent 

course of monitoring he received, amounts to a disagreement with 

his course of treatment that is not cognizable under the Eighth 

Amendment. Moreover, prison officials’ failure to follow 

internal prison policies are not actionable under § 1983 unless 

the alleged breach of policy rises to the level of a 

constitutional violation. See Gardner v. Howard, 109 F.3d 427, 

430 (8th Cir. 1997). Therefore, any failure by prison officials 
5

to follow internal correctional policies is insufficient, 

without more, to support Jackson’s claim.

Jackson also argues that the court erred in granting 

summary judgment on his equal protection claim, as an affidavit 

Jackson provided to the court was sufficient to support his

claim that he was treated differently from similarly situated 

prisoners. “To succeed on an equal protection claim, a 

plaintiff must first demonstrate that he has been treated 

differently from others with whom he is similarly situated and 

that the unequal treatment was the result of intentional or 

purposeful discrimination.” Morrison v. Garraghty, 239 F.3d 

648, 654 (4th Cir. 2001). We conclude that the affidavit upon 

which Jackson relies was insufficient to support a finding that 

he was denied treatment from others similarly situated or that 

any difference in treatment was due to purposeful discrimination 

by Defendants.

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. 

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED