Dorsey v. Stine

               IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT



                            No. 96-50492
                          Summary Calendar



PAUL EARL DORSEY,

                                         Plaintiff-Appellant,


versus

JOHN E. STINE; D. MOYA;
MORGAN, Capt.,

                                         Defendants-Appellees.


                         - - - - - - - - - -
           Appeal from the United States District Court
                 for the Western District of Texas
                        USDC No. W-95-CV-334
                         - - - - - - - - - -
                           October 30, 1996
Before JONES, DeMOSS and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

     Paul Earl Dorsey, Texas prisoner # 642562, appeals the

district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action as

frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i), formerly § 1915(d).

Dorsey argues that prison officials violated his due process

rights by imposing a lockdown without providing notice and a

hearing.   Dorsey also argues that the meals he received during


     *
        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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
                             No. 96-50492
                                 - 2 -

the lockdown were nutritionally inadequate and did not contain

fresh fruit or condiments.    We have reviewed the record and the

district court’s opinion and find no abuse of discretion in the

reasoning of the district court.    Dorsey v. Stine, No. W-95-CV-

334 (W.D. Tex. June 20, 1995).    Dorsey’s conclusional allegations

of weight loss raised for the first time on appeal are not

supported by evidence in the record and therefore are

insufficient to show that the meals he received during the

lockdown were nutritionally inadequate.     See United States v.

Flores, 887 F.2d 543, 546 (5th Cir. 1989)(court will not enlarge

the record on appeal to include matters not presented to the

district court).

     Dorsey’s appeal is without arguable merit and is thus

frivolous.   See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir.

1983).   Because his appeal is frivolous, it is DISMISSED.   5th

Cir. R. 42.2.   Dorsey is cautioned that any future frivolous

appeals filed by him or on his behalf will invite the imposition

of sanctions.   Dorsey is cautioned further to review any pending

appeals to ensure that they do not raise arguments that are

frivolous.

     APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.
Related Cases
