Turk v. Thomas, et al

* 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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
F I L E D
January 6, 2005
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-20181
Summary Calendar
DARREL D. TURK,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
TOMMY B. THOMAS, Sheriff;
MEDICAL DEPARTMENT,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. H-03-CV-1716
--------------------
Before DAVIS, SMITH, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Darrel D. Turk, Texas prisoner # 1124638, challenges the
district court’s dismissal on summary-judgment grounds of his 42
U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. His motion for appointment of counsel on
appeal is DENIED. See Ulmer v. Chancellor, 691 F.2d 209, 212 (5th
Cir. 1982).
Turk asserts that the defendants showed deliberate
indifference to his serious medical needs by failing to diagnose
and treat his broken leg, failing to return him to the hospital for

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 04-20181
-2-
a follow-up examination, and failing to give him the medication
prescribed by the hospital. His complaints sound in malpractice or
constitute a disagreement with the treatment received and are
insufficient to state a constitutional violation. See Varnado v.
Lynaugh, 920 F.2d 320, 321 (5th Cir. 1991). Turk did not establish
in the district court a genuine issue of material fact regarding
the defendants’ failure to change his bandages. See FED. R. CIV. P.
56(e); King v. Dogan, 31 F.3d 344, 346 (5th Cir. 1994). Turk’s
allegations of verbal abuse do not allege a violation under 42
U.S.C. § 1983. See Bender v. Brumley, 1 F.3d 271, 274 n.4 (5th
Cir. 1993). Turk has not established that he suffered substantial
harm as a result of any failure to examine and treat his head
injuries. See Mendoza v. Lynaugh, 989 F.2d 191, 195 (5th Cir.
1993).
Turk asserts that the district court erred in denying his
motions to amend his complaint and for discovery. The district
court did not abuse its discretion in either of these rulings. See
Briddle v. Scott, 63 F.3d 364, 379 (5th Cir. 1995); Richardson v.
Henry, 902 F.2d 414, 417 (5th Cir. 1990).
Turk has not established that the district court erred in
granting summary judgment in favor of the defendants. See Fraire
v. City of Arlington, 957 F.2d 1268, 1273 (5th Cir. 1992). The
judgment of the district court is thus AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --