Case Name: Gerald Allen PERRY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Reginaldo STANLEY; Clovis Gilbert; Lowry Powers; Jonathan Pleasant, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-01-20
Citations: 161 F. App'x 437
Docket Number: No. 04-41237
Parties: Gerald Allen PERRY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Reginaldo STANLEY; Clovis Gilbert; Lowry Powers; Jonathan Pleasant, Respondents-Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 161
Pages: 437–438

Head Matter:
Gerald Allen PERRY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Reginaldo STANLEY; Clovis Gilbert; Lowry Powers; Jonathan Pleasant, Respondents-Appellees.
No. 04-41237.
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Decided Jan. 20, 2006.
Gerald Allen Perry, Richmond, TX, pro se.
Timothy J. Flocos, Office of the Attorney General for the State of Texas, Austin, TX, for Respondents-Appellees.
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
In this action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Gerald Perry, Texas prisoner # 644896, appeals summary judgment in favor of the defendants. Perry contends that the defendants violated his Eighth Amendment rights by delaying treatment of his hand, which he broke in a fight.
Unsuccessful medical treatment, acts of negligence, medical malpractice, or a prisoner's disagreement with prison officials regarding medical treatment are insufficient to establish an unconstitutional denial of medical care. Norton v. Dimazana, 122 F.3d 286, 292 (5th Cir.1997). The uncontested summary judgment evidence shows that Perry received extensive care for his injury. Perry's allegations, arguments, and summary-judgment evidence point only to a difference of opinion as to the proper course of treatment. Perry has failed to show there is any genuine issue of fact material to whether any person acted with deliberate indifference to his health problem. The judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.