Darryl Frazier v. USA, 560 F. App'x 320

Frazier, a federal prisoner, filed this pro se action in Jan 2012 against the United States, the BOP, FCI La Tuna warden, La Tuna URC, and La Tuna medical staff at FSL La Tuna.
He alleged four claims: FTCA negligence (claim 1), deliberate indifference to medical needs (claim 2), continuing-tort risk of infection (claim 3), and First Amendment access-to-courts retaliation (claim 4).
A magistrate judge (MJ) summarized treatment from 2008–2011, noting dermatologist recommendations for surgery and URC denials based on medical necessity.
URC and staff denied surgical excision, treated him with antibiotics, shampoos, steroids, and other therapies after initial surgical recommendations.
The district court dismissed claims 2–4 as to the Government and individual defendants in official capacities, and granted summary judgment on claim 1 against the Government after expert-evidence issues.
Frazier appealed, raising issues about deliberate indifference, application of Texas medical-malpractice law, Daubert challenges, and discovery delays.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether deliberate indifference claims were properly dismissed	Frazier contends disputed motives and treatment facts show deliberate indifference.	Appellees argue no constitutional violation or evidence of deliberate indifference; qualified immunity applies to individuals.	Yes; deliberate-indifference claims were properly dismissed.
Whether Texas medical-malpractice law applied to the FTCA claim and summary judgment was proper	Frazier argues FTCA claim should survive with appropriate medical-evidence issues.	Government argues Texas law applies and expert proof is required; Frazier failed to provide such evidence.	Yes; district court proper in applying state law and granting summary judgment for lack of expert evidence.
Whether Daubert and discovery issues warranted relief on expert-witness challenges	Frazier sought to challenge Dr. Adams via Daubert and requested discovery continuance to obtain an expert.	Defendants oppose further discovery and Daubert challenges as untimely or unfounded.	No reversible error; motions denied, discovery issues not yielding relief.

United States v. Gaubert, 499 U.S. 315 (Supreme Court 1991) (two-part test for discretionary-function exception applicability)
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (Supreme Court 1993) (standards for admissibility of expert testimony)