*105 OPINION

When this case was last before us, we vacated in part a District Court order dismissing Mutsehler’s pro se prisoner-civil-rights complaint, remanding for further consideration of his Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim. See Mutschler v. SCI Albion CHCA Health Care, 445 Fed.Appx. 617, 621 (3d Cir. 2011). 1 Mutschler now appeals a District Court order granting summary judgment in favor of the defendants. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 to exercise plenary review of the order, using the same standard employed by the District Court. Petruzzi’s IGA Supermarkets v. Darling-Del. Co., 998 F.2d 1224, 1230 (3d Cir. 1993).

We have carefully reviewed the record compiled below, including the parties’ evi-dentiary submissions, and do not doubt that Mutschler experienced pain and discomfort. Nevertheless, no evidence supports Mutsehler’s contention that he suffered because the defendants knew of and consciously disregarded a significant risk to his health and safety. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837, 114 S.Ct. 1970, 128 L.Ed.2d 811 (1994). As Mut-schler himself concedes, the first incident, from which he sustained the majority of his injuries, was accidental. 2 Mere negligence and medical malpractice do not rise to the level of an Eighth Amendment violation. White v. Napoleon, 897 F.2d 103, 108-09 (3d Cir. 1990). Mutschler nevertheless contends that the two subsequent episodes suffice to show that Malena acted with the required state of mind, but 1) Malena was not involved in the third incident, and 2) Mutschler presented nothing that would tend to show that Malena was actually aware of the initial allergic reaction. Mutschler did submit a grievance, but did not mention Malena in any of his submissions to prison authorities, and Ma-lena claims that she was never informed (until the commencement of suit) that Mut-schler was either given a latex catheter or was possibly injured by it. We conclude that the lack of scienter is not in dispute; hence, Mutschler cannot prevail against Malena, because “the record taken as a whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for” him. 3 Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986). The claim against Overton fails because Mutschler has not adduced facts that would show her personal involvement in any constitutional violation. See Rode v. Dellarciprete, 845 F.2d 1195, 1207 (3d Cir. 1988). 4

*106 Mutschler explains that he suffers from a wide range of disabilities and is forced to rely on the defendants for his care. In light of this dependence, allegations of negligence, especially in relation to something as serious as an often-severe medical allergy, are cause for concern. But, for the reasons discussed above, we agree with the District Court that Mutschler failed to show “deliberate indifference.” See Gobert v. Caldwell, 463 F.3d 339, 346 (5th Cir. 2006) (explaining that “[unsuccessful medical treatment, acts of negligence, or medical malpractice do not constitute deliberate indifference”). Finding no substantial question presented by this appeal, we will summarily affirm the District Court’s judgment. See Murray v. Bledsoe, 650 F.3d 246, 248 (3d Cir. 2011) (per curiam); see also 3d Cir. L.A.R. 27.4; I.O.P. 10.6. 5 Mutschler’s motion for appointment of counsel is denied.