Brock v. Kumah, 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-60751
Summary Calendar
HAROLD BROCK,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
SAMUEL KUMAH, DR., Prison Physician at Marshall
County Correctional Facility; EMMITT L. SPARKMAN,
Warden at Marshall County Correctional Facility;
ROBERT JOHNSON, COMMISSIONER, MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT
OF CORRECTIONS,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Mississippi
USDC No. 3:00-CV-191-B
--------------------
August 1, 2002
Before JOLLY, DAVIS and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Harold Brock, Mississippi prisoner # R5226, appeals from the
district court's dismissal of his civil rights complaint as
frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). Brock argues
that the defendants were deliberately indifferent to his serious

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 01-60751
-2-
medical needs by failing to provide adequate medical care,
resulting in his loss of vision. We affirm.
Brock, who suffers from diabetes and hypertension, was seen
by medical personnel on a monthly basis. He was examined by an
optometrist soon after he first reported blurred vision and was
examined by the prison doctor and an outside ophthalmologist in
connection with continued complaints. We conclude that Brock's
complaints about his medical care and the lack of further
opinions from specialists do not rise to the level of deliberate
indifference. See Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 105-07 (1976);
Domino v. Texas Dep't of Criminal Justice, 239 F.3d 752, 756 (5th
Cir. 2001); Johnson v. Treen, 759 F.2d 1236, 1238 (5th Cir.
1985). At most, Brock's allegations amount to claims for medical
malpractice, which is insufficient for relief under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983. See Varnado v. Lynaugh, 920 F.2d 320, 321 (5th Cir.
1991).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --