Connors v. Halupis

Case: 21-20598 Document: 00516588403 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/22/2022
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 21-20598
FILED
Summary Calendar
December 22, 2022
Lyle W. Cayce
Kevin Connors, Clerk
Plaintiff—Appellant,
versus
Doctor Edgar Halupis; Terry Speer,
Defendants—Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:17-CV-1512
Before Wiener, Elrod, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Plaintiff-Appellant Kevin Connors, Texas prisoner # 1284939,
appeals the dismissal of his claims against Defendants-Appellees Edgar
Halupis and Terry Speer for deliberate indifference to his serious medical
needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Connors has waived his claims
against Speer by failing to brief them on appeal, so we discuss only his claims
*
This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 21-20598 Document: 00516588403 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/22/2022
No. 21-20598
against Halupis. See Brinkmann v. Dallas Cnty. Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d
744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987).
We review the grant of a motion for summary judgment de novo. See
Xtreme Lashes, LLC v. Xtended Beauty, Inc., 576 F.3d 221, 226 (5th Cir.
2009). “A prison official violates the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition
against cruel and unusual punishment when his conduct demonstrates
deliberate indifference to a prisoner’s serious medical needs, constituting an
unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain.” Easter v. Powell, 467 F.3d 459,
463 (5th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). To state
an Eighth Amendment violation, a prisoner must show both “objective
exposure to a substantial risk of serious harm” and “that prison officials
acted or failed to act with deliberate indifference to that risk.” Gobert v.
Caldwell, 463 F.3d 339, 345-46 (5th Cir. 2006). Absent exceptional
circumstances, neither unsuccessful medical treatment nor disagreement
with medical treatment or decisions whether to provide additional treatment
constitute deliberate indifference. See id. at 346.
At most, Connors’s claims amount to disagreements about his
medical treatment, negligence, or medical malpractice, which do not
constitute deliberate indifference. See id. The record indicates that Halupis
was aware of Connors’s need for a low residue diet, but he believed that the
Texas Department of Criminal Justice’s normal diet was low residue and
sufficient for Connors’s needs. The record also indicates that, while
compliance was inconsistent, Connors was consistently prescribed a formula
supplement.
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
2