Carter v. Potter Cty Sheriff

               IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT



                           No. 95-11037
                         Summary Calendar



TIMOTHY WAYNE CARTER,

                                         Plaintiff-Appellant,


versus

POTTER COUNTY SHERIFF, ET AL.,

                                         Defendants,

POTTER COUNTY SHERIFF;
JIMMY DON BOYDSTON; SGT. LANCASTER,

                                        Defendants-Appellee.


                       - - - - - - - - - -
          Appeal from the United States District Court
               for the Northern District of Texas
                      USDC No. 2:93-CV-339
                       - - - - - - - - - -

                         August 30, 1996
Before JONES, DeMOSS and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

     Timothy Wayne Carter, #563581, was given a bench trial in

his action under 42 U.S.C. 1983 alleging that prison officials

were deliberately indifferent to a substantial risk of attack by



     *
        Pursuant to Local Rule 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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 Local Rule
47.5.4.
other inmates.     See Farmer v. Brennan, 114 S. Ct. 1970, 1981-82

(1994).

     The district court found that defendants Boydston and

Lancaster were not deliberately indifferent to Carter’s safety

needs because he had been placed in a separate cell to protect

him from other inmates and because neither Boydston nor Lancaster

were responsible for allowing Carter to leave his cell.    Rule

52(a), Fed. R. Civ. P., provides in part: “Findings of fact,

whether based on oral or documentary evidence, shall not be set

aside unless clearly erroneous and due regard shall be given to

the opportunity of the trial court to judge of the credibility of

the witnesses.”     See Anderson v. City of Bessemer City, 470 U.S.

564, 575 (1985).    Carter has not shown that the district court

was clearly erroneous in its findings.

     AFFIRMED.