REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

MARK HORNSBY, Magistrate Judge

In accordance with the standing order of this court, this matter was referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge for review, report and recommendation.

STATEMENT OF CLAIM

Before the Court is a civil rights complaint filed in forma pauperis by pro se plaintiff Cantreal Mickens ("Plaintiff"), pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This complaint was received and filed in this Court on November 2, 2007. Plaintiff is incarcerated at the David Wade Correctional Center in Homer, Louisiana, and he alleges his civil rights were violated by prison officials. He names Richard Stalder, Venetia Michael, Angie Huff, Dr. Hearns and Pam Austin as defendants.

Plaintiff claims that since September 28, 2005, he has been denied proper medical treatment. He claims he has been denied blood and/or lab tests to determine if he has Methicillian Resistant Staphylococcus Aureus (MRSA). He claims he has had multiple staph infections.

Plaintiff claims that in 2004 or 2005, he received inadequate medical treatment when Dr. Parker admitted him to the infirmary for two to three days because he had a staph infection on his foot. He claims he was given Rocephlin shots twice a day while in the infirmary. He claims the nurses treated him for symptoms of MRSA.

Plaintiff claims that on September 28, 2005, Pam Austin denied his request for blood and/or lab tests for MRSA.

Plaintiff claims that on December 5, 2005, he requested medical treatment because he had a bump on his left knee. He claims he did not receive medical treatment until December 17, 2005, when he made his second request. He claims he was denied blood and/or lab tests. He claims the nurse prescribed Doxycycline for his condition.

Plaintiff claims that on April 3, 2006, he requested medical treatment for a staph infection on his nose. He claims he was denied blood and/or lab tests. He claims Dr. Singsong prescribed Bactroban and Doxycycline for his condition.

Plaintiff claims that on September 6, 2006, he requested medical treatment for a staph infection. He claims the nurse prescribed Bactrim for ten days.

Plaintiff claims that if he has MRSA and it is left untreated, he could suffer complications including fatal toxic shock. He claims the antibiotics he has been prescribed without a proper diagnosis have compromised his immune system. He also claims the lack of knowledge regarding his health condition have caused him mental distress.

Accordingly, Plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive damages, penalties against Defendants, injunctive relief and termination of Defendants.

For the following reasons, Plaintiff's complaint should be dismissed.

LAW AND ANALYSIS

Plaintiff filed this claim pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 of the Civil Rights Act which provides redress for persons "deprived of any rights, privileges or immunities" by a person acting under color of state law. The particular right protected under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in matters which concern alleged denial of or inadequate medical care is the Eighth Amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment.

The lack of proper inmate medical care rises to the level of a constitutional deprivation under the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution only if the evidence shows that the prison officials showed "deliberate indifference to serious medical needs." Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106, 97 S. Ct. 285, 292 (1976); See also Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 835, 114 S. Ct. 1970, 1978 (1994). It is only deliberate indifference, "an unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain" or an act "repugnant to the conscience of mankind," that constitutes conduct proscribed by the Eighth Amendment. Estelle, 429 U.S. at 105-06, 97 S. Ct. at 292; See also Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153, 96 S. Ct. 2909 (1976). Further, the plaintiff must establish that the defendants possessed a culpable state of mind. See Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 297-302, 111 S. Ct. 2321, 2323-27 (1991); Farmer, 511 U.S. at 838-47, 114 S. Ct. at 1979-84. In addition, disagreement with the diagnostic measures or methods of treatment afforded by prison officials does not state a claim for Eighth Amendment indifference to medical needs. See Norton v. Dimazana, 122 F.3d 286, 292 (5th Cir. 1997). Finally, a prisoner must also allege an injury that is more than de minimis, although it need not be significant. See Gomez v. Chandler, 163 F.3d 921, 924 (5th Cir. 1999). See also Siglar v. Hightower, 112 F.3d 191 (5th Cir. 1997).

In this case, after a thorough review of Plaintiff's complaint, read in a light most favorable to him, the Court finds that the facts alleged do not support a finding of deliberate indifference to serious medical needs. To the contrary, the record demonstrates that Defendants were attentive to the medical needs of Plaintiff. It has been consistently held that an inmate who has been examined by medical personnel fails to set forth a valid showing of deliberate indifference to serious medical needs.Norton v. Dimazana, 122 F.2d 286, 292 (5th Cir. 1997); Callaway v. Smith County, 991 F. Supp. 801, 809 (E.D. Tex. 1998); Spears v. McCotter, 766 F.2d 179 (5th Cir. 1985); Mayweather v. Foti, 958 F.2d 91 (5th Cir. 1992). Plaintiff admits he was seen by the medical staff and was prescribed medications for his condition. However, he disagrees with the medical treatment he received. Plaintiff's complaint is devoid of factual allegations that would tend to show Defendants acted with a culpable state of mind or that their actions were "unnecessary and wanton." Furthermore, as previously discussed, disagreement with the diagnostic measures or methods of treatment afforded by prison officials does not state a claim for Eighth Amendment indifference to medical needs.

Plaintiff's allegations, if accepted as true, may amount to a state law claim for negligence, a tort. However, mere negligence, neglect or medical malpractice does not amount to a denial of a constitutional right as these actions on the part of Defendants do not rise to the level of a constitutional tort. See Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327, 329-30, 106 S. Ct. 662, 664 (1986);Estelle, 429 U.S. at 106, 97 S. Ct. at 292; Lewis v. Woods, 848 F.2d 649, 651 (5th Cir. 1988). The fact that Plaintiff does not believe that his medical treatment was as good as it should have been is not a cognizable complaint under the Civil Rights Act.See Spears v. McCotter, 766 F.2d 179, 181 (5th Cir. 1985). Prisoners are not constitutionally entitled to the best medical care that money can buy. See Mayweather v. Foti, 958 F.2d. 91 (5th Cir. 1992). Accordingly, Plaintiff's medical claim should be dismissed with prejudice as frivolous.

CONCLUSION

Because Plaintiff filed this proceeding in forma pauperis ("IFP"), if this Court finds Plaintiff's complaint to be frivolous, it may dismiss the complaint as such at any time, before or after service of process, and before or after answers have been filed. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e); Green v. McKaskle, 788 F.2d 1116, 1119 (5th Cir. 1986); Spears v. McCotter, 766 F.2d 179, 181 (5th Cir. 1985). District courts are vested with extremely broad discretion in making a determination of whether an IFP proceeding is frivolous and may dismiss a claim as frivolous if the IFP complaint lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. See Hicks v. Garner, 69 F.3d 22 (5th Cir. 1995); Booker v. Koonce, 2 F.3d 114 (5th Cir. 1993); Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 109 S.Ct. 1827 (1989).

For the reasons heretofore stated, it is recommended that Plaintiff's complaint be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e).

OBJECTIONS

Under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b), parties aggrieved by this recommendation have ten (10) business days from service of this Report and Recommendation to file specific, written objections with the Clerk of Court, unless an extension of time is granted under Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(b). A party may respond to another party's objection within ten (10) days after being served with a copy thereof. Counsel are directed to furnish a courtesy copy of any objections or responses to the District Judge at the time of filing.

A party's failure to file written objections to the proposed findings, conclusions and recommendations set forth above, within ten (10) days after being served with a copy shall bar that party, except upon grounds of plain error, from attacking, on appeal, the proposed factual findings and legal conclusions that were accepted by the district court and that were not objected to by the aforementioned party. See Douglas v. U.S.A.A., 79 F.3d 1415 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc).