* 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should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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

September 20, 2007

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-20670

Summary Calendar

ALBERT JOHNSON

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

NAIK, Dr; LARGENT, Dr; HULIPAS, Dr; SCOTT, Administrator; DOSTAL,

Administrator; POTTER, PA; BLENDA CHANEY, Senior Warden

Defendants-Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:04-CV-3310

Before KING, DAVIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Albert Johnson, Texas prisoner # 642957, filed a pro se, in forma pauperis,

42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint, arguing that the defendants were deliberately

indifferent to his need for medical treatment for a knee injury sustained in

prison. Specifically, he contended that the defendants delayed in providing him

with orthopedic knee surgery. The district court dismissed Johnson’s § 1983

action and he now appeals, reasserting his deliberate-indifference argument.
No. 05-20670

2

When an appellant fails to identify any error in the district court’s

analysis, it is the same as if the appellant had not appealed that judgment.

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

1987). Although pro se briefs are afforded liberal construction, even pro se

litigants must brief arguments in order to preserve them. Yohey v. Collins, 985

F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993). Johnson does not challenge the district court’s

determination that the defendants are entitled to Eleventh Amendment

immunity for any claims raised against them in their official capacities.

Accordingly, he has abandoned the issue on appeal. See Yohey, 985 F.2d at 224-

25; Brinkmann, 813 F.2d at 748.

This court reviews de novo the district court’s grant of summary judgment.

See Rios v. Rossotti, 252 F3d 375, 378 (5th Cir. 2001). Johnson has submitted

no evidence that the defendants have ever ignored his complaints, refused

treatment for his knee, intentionally treated his knee injury incorrectly, “or

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

any serious medical needs.” See Johnson v. Treen, 759 F.2d 1236, 1238 (5th Cir.

1985). At most, Johnson’s claim is a disagreement with the treatment he

received for his knee or an incorrect diagnosis on the part of the prison medical

personnel, both of which are insufficient to raise an issue of material fact on a

claim of deliberate indifference. See Varnado v. Lynaugh, 920 F.2d 320, 321 (5th

Cir. 1991); Johnson, 759 F2d at 1238. Accordingly, Johnson has failed to show

that the grant of summary judgment was error.

The district court dismissed Johnson’s § 1983 action against “Scott,”

“Vostal,” and Chaney pursuantto 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) for failure to state

a claim on which relief may be granted. A dismissal for failure to state a claim

under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) is reviewed under the same de novo standard of review

applicable to dismissals made pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6). Harris v.

Hegmann, 198 F.3d 153, 156 (5th Cir. 1999). “A district court’s dismissal of a

complaint under this subsection may be upheld only if, taking the plaintiff’s
No. 05-20670

3

allegations as true, it appears that no relief could be granted based on the

plaintiff’s alleged facts.” Id. (internal quotations and citations omitted).

Because Johnson has failed to show a constitutional violation regarding

deliberate indifference, and because his claims against these supervisory officials

stem from the deliberate-indifference allegations, the district court did not err

in dismissing his § 1983 action against them for failure to state a claim on which

relief may be granted. See Daniel v Ferguson, 839 F.2d 1124, 1128 (5th Cir.

1988).

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.