Thomas v. Rush

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
__________________
No. 95-11214
Conference Calendar
__________________
DARYL THOMAS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
PHILIP L. RUSH,
Defendant-Appellee.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 2:95-CV-299
- - - - - - - - - -
April 17, 1996
Before DUHÉ, DeMOSS, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Daryl Thomas appeals the district court's dismissal of his
42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights suit as frivolous pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915(d). Thomas' allegations that Dr. Rush incorrectly
assessed his vision impairment, conducted an inadequate
examination, and failed to prescribe glasses are insufficient to
give rise to a § 1983 cause of action. See Varnado v. Lynaugh,
920 F.2d 320, 321 (5th Cir. 1991). Thomas does not allege acts
by Dr. Rush "sufficiently harmful to evidence deliberate
*
Pursuant to Local Rule 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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 Local Rule
47.5.4.
No. 95-11214
-2-
indifference to serious medical needs." See Estelle v. Gamble,
429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976). The district court did not abuse its
discretion in dismissing Thomas' claim against Dr. Rush as
frivolous under § 1915(d) because it has no basis in law. See
Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 31-34 (1992).
Thomas' motion to supplement the record is DENIED.
AFFIRMED.