Jenkins v. Lee , 84 F. App'x 469 ( 2004 )

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS January 9, 2004
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 03-40573
Summary Calendar
JAMES E. JENKINS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
Lee, Dr.; ET AL.,
Defendants,
Lee, Dr.,
Defendant-Appellee.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. C-02-CV-191
----------------------------------------------------------
Before SMITH, DeMOSS AND STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
James E. Jenkins, Texas inmate # 599106, appeals the summary-judgment dismissal, on
grounds of qualified immunity, of his civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Jenkins
claimed that the defendant, Dr. Lee, was deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs because
Dr. Lee prescribed Verapamil rather than Clonidine for Jenkins’ high blood pressure. Jenkins
presented evidence showing that Dr. Lee continued to prescribe Verapamil, and to refuse Jenkins’
requests for Clonidine, after Jenkins complained o f discomfort, lightheadedness, dizzy spells, and
nausea, and suffered a blackout due to high blood pressure.
*
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be
published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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.
This court reviews de novo the grant of a motion for summary judgment. See United States
v. Lawrence, 276 F.3d 193, 195 (5th Cir. 2001). In order to preclude summary judgment, there must
be sufficient summary-judgment evidence to raise a fact issue as to the defendant’s deliberate
indifference. See Nerren v. Livingston Police Dep’t., 86 F.3d 469, 473 n.27 (5th Cir. 1996). A
prison official acts with deliberate indifference “only if he knows of and disregards an excessive risk
to inmate health or safety.” Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994).
We have reviewed the briefs and the record on appeal and conclude that the district court did
not err in granting summary judgment in favor of Dr. Lee. The undisputed summary-judgment
evidence is that Verapamil is the therapeutic equivalent of Clonidine. Jenkins has not shown that
there is sufficient evidence to support a conclusion that Dr. Lee was deliberately indifferent for
treating him with Verapamil rather than with Clonidine. See Nerren, 86 F.3d at 473 n.27. The
summary-judgment evidence and Jenkins’ argument reflect nothing more than mere disagreement with
the care rendered by Dr. Lee, or, at best, malpractice, which are insufficient to establish a
constitutional violation. See Varnado v. Lynaugh, 920 F.2d 320, 321 (5th Cir. 1991).
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.