IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-50429
Summary Calendar
GLEN C. JAMES,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
WAYNE SCOTT ET AL.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
For the Western District of Texas
USDC No. SA-96-CV-325
September 12, 1996
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Glen C. James, Texas inmate #660410, appeals the dismissal as
frivolous of his civil rights complaint. James does not challenge
the denial of his request for a preliminary injunction or the
imposition of court costs. Therefore, these issues are abandoned
on appeal. See Eason v. Thaler, 14 F.3d 8, 9 n.1 (5th Cir. 1994).
James argues that the district court abused its discretion by
dismissing the complaint because he has the constitutional right to
receive information and ideas through the medium of free
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
television. Our review of the record and James’ argument detects
no abuse of discretion by the district court. See Denton v.
Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 31 (1992). James’ sparse allegations do
not implicate the denial of a constitutional right. See Mann v.
Smith, 796 F.2d 79, 82-83 (5th Cir. 1986); Montana v. Commissioners
Court, 659 F.2d 19, 23 (5th Cir. Unit A 1981), cert. denied, 455
U.S. 1026 (1982).
James’ remaining argument, that the magistrate judge and
district court were biased against him through their rulings, is
without merit. See Liteky v. United States, 114 S. Ct. 1147, 1155
(1994).
This appeal is without arguable merit and thus frivolous. See
5th Cir. R. 42.2. The appeal is DISMISSED. This opinion does not
lessen the sanction imposed upon James in James v. Scott, No. 96-
50406 (5th Cir. 1996).
DISMISSED.
2