
    Dexter Arthur JACKSON, Plaintiff-Appellant v. Joe FERNAULD, Wynne Unit Medical Staff, Paul M. Moore, Doug Dretke, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, University of Texas Medical Branch, Gary Mohr, Stephen Martin, Lloyd Aschberger, Jenny Abraham, Walter Zalenski, III, Joanna Alford, John Doe, James Westmoreland, John Sealy Hospital, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 03-21202.
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Decided Aug. 18, 2004.
    Dexter Arthur Jackson, Houston, TX, pro se.
    Timothy J. Flocos, Austin, TX, for Defendant-App elle e.
    Before KING, Chief Judge, and DAVIS and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Dexter Arthur Jackson, former Texas prisoner number 565215, filed the instant § 1983 suit to seek redress for, inter alia, the defendants’ alleged indifference to his serious medical needs while he was incarcerated. Jackson argues that district court erred in granting the defendants’ motion for summary judgment because they failed to treat his broken thumb properly and promptly. Jackson’s allegations amount to no more than assertions of negligence, malpractice, and failure to provide additional treatment. These allegations are insufficient to show deliberate indifference. See Domino v. Texas Dep’t. of Criminal Justice, 239 F.3d 752, 755 (5th Cir.2001); Stewart v. Murphy, 174 F.3d 530, 534 (5th Cir.1999); Varnado v. Lynaugh, 920 F.2d 320, 321 (5th Cir.1991). Jackson’s argument that the district court should not have granted summary judgment in the absence of affidavits is unavailing. Jackson has not shown that the district court erred in granting the defendants’ motion for summary judgment and dismissing his suit.

Jackson also has not shown that the district court abused its discretion in relation to discovery. See Karaha Bodas Co., LLC. v. Perusahaan Pertambangan Min-yak Dan Gas Bumi Negara, 364 F.3d 274, 304-05 (5th Cir.2004); King v. Dogan, 31 F.3d 344, 346 (5th Cir.1994). Jackson has not shown that he made any discovery requests that were denied, nor has he identified any particular documents that he wished to obtain through discovery.

The judgment of the lower court is AFFIRMED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     