IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-31135

TROY DAVIS,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

JONATHAN A. ROUNDTREE; KENNETH NORRIS; COLLINS, Doctor,

Defendants-Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Louisiana

USDC No. 3:12-CV-41

Before KING, JOLLY and HAYNES, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Troy Davis, Louisiana prisoner # 356886, filed the instant 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983 suit to seek redress for alleged acts of retaliation and deliberate 

indifference to serious medical needs as well as the disposition of his 

grievances. The district court granted the defendants’ motion for summary 

judgment and dismissed his suit. 

Now, he moves this court for authorization to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) 

on appeal and for appointed counsel. 

 

* 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

June 25, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 14-31135 Document: 00513093078 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/25/2015
No. 14-31135

2

By moving to proceed IFP, Davis is challenging the district court’s 

certification that his appeal is not taken in good faith. See Baugh v. Taylor, 

117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997). Our inquiry into an appellant’s good faith 

“is limited to whether the appeal involves legal points arguable on their merits 

(and therefore not frivolous).” Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 

1983) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). We may dismiss the 

appeal if it is frivolous. See Baugh, 117 F.3d at 202 n.24; 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

We conduct a de novo review of a grant of summary judgment, using the 

same standard as the district court. Nickell v. Beau View of Biloxi, L.L.C., 636 

F.3d 752, 754 (5th Cir. 2011). “The [district] court shall grant summary 

judgment 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. 56(a). The evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the 

nonmoving party, but “conclusional allegations and unsubstantiated 

assertions may not be relied on as evidence by the nonmoving party.” Carnaby 

v. City of Houston, 636 F.3d 183, 187 (5th Cir. 2011).

Now, Davis contends that the district court erred by dismissing his 

claims that the defendants were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical 

needs and infringed his rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act. To 

prevail on a claim of deliberate indifference to serious medical needs, the 

prisoner must “submit evidence that prison officials refused to treat him, 

ignored his complaints, intentionally treated him incorrectly, or engaged in 

any similar conduct that would clearly evince a wanton disregard for any 

serious medical needs.” Gobert v. Caldwell, 463 F.3d 339, 346 (5th Cir. 2006) 

(internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 

Our review of the record and Davis’s arguments shows that this standard 

has not been met. Rather, his contentions amount to a disagreement with the 

 Case: 14-31135 Document: 00513093078 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/25/2015
No. 14-31135

3

treatment received or an allegation of malpractice, neither of which amounts 

to deliberate indifference. See Stewart v. Murphy, 174 F.3d 530, 534 (5th Cir. 

1999); Banuelos v. McFarland, 41 F.3d 232, 235 (5th Cir. 1995). Davis’s 

arguments concerning the ADA do not suffice to show that he will raise a 

nonfrivolous appellate argument because he did not raise an ADA claim in the 

district court. 

Davis has failed to show that his appeal involves any arguably 

meritorious issue. See Howard, 707 F.2d at 220. Accordingly, his motion for 

leave to proceed IFP on appeal is denied, and his appeal is dismissed as 

frivolous. See Baugh, 117 F.3d at 202 n.24; 5TH CIR. R. 42.2. His motion for 

appointed counsel is likewise denied.

MOTIONS DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS.

 Case: 14-31135 Document: 00513093078 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/25/2015