IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-20452
Summary Calendar
EUGENE ALAN STEPHENS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
JAMES A. COLLINS, DIRECTOR, TEXAS
DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE,
INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION; GEORGE PIERSON;
DESSIE F. CHERRY; LENNY A. STEELE;
BRUCE THALER; WAYNE SCOTT, DIRECTOR,
TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL;
INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION,
Defendants-Appellees.
----------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. H-93-CV-3435
----------
November 19, 1996
Before DAVIS, EMILIO M. GARZA, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Eugene Alan Stephens, Texas inmate #397500, appeals the dismissal as frivolous of his
civil rights complaint.1
*
Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be
published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule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.
1
Stephens does not raise an issue concerning the district court’s dismissal of the
excessive-force claim, pursuant to Stephens’ motion for voluntary dismissal. As such, any issue
Stephens challenges the district court’s dismissal by arguing that he was retaliated against
by the defendants and his right to exercise freely his Islamic faith was violated by Stephens’
transfer from the Goree Unit to the Ellis I Unit after he filed grievances about the lack of Muslim
services at the Goree Unit. Stephens also argues that his job assignment after his transfer to Ellis
I was discrimination and retaliation against him for complaining about the lack of opportunity to
practice his religion. We have carefully reviewed the record and the appellate arguments. For
essentially the same reasons as explained by the district court at the conclusion of the Spears2
hearing, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing these claims
as frivolous. See Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33 (1992).
Because Stephens does not challenge the dismissal as frivolous of the following claims,
they are deemed abandoned on appeal: cruel and unusual punishment through the top-bunk cell
assignment, denial of adequate medical care concerning events surrounding Stephens’ foot
surgery, denial of access to the courts, and denial of an emergency furlough from prison to attend
mother’s funeral. See Eason, 14 F.3d at 9 n.1.
For the first time on appeal, Stephens argues that he is being denied adequate medical care
because he has been denied medically prescribed shoes and his shaving pass has been taken away.
He also alleges, for the first time on appeal, that a physician ordered surgery on both of Stephens’
feet, but surgery was performed only on one foot. To the extent that these arguments include
actions occurring after the district court’s dismissal of the medical-care claims, we conclude that
the district court did not plainly err by failing to consider them. See Highlands Ins. v. National
concerning that claim or dismissal is deemed abandoned on appeal. See Eason v. Thaler, 14 F.3d
8, 9 n.1 (5th Cir. 1994).
2
Spears v. McCotter, 766 F.2d 179 (5th Cir. 1985).
Union Fire Ins., 27 F.3d 1027, 1031-32 (5th Cir. 1994) (applying plain-error standard in civil case
to issue raised for the first time on appeal), cert. denied, 115 S. Ct. 903 (1995). Similarly, we find
no plain error in Stephens’ contention concerning the change in the physician’s order for surgery.
We have considered Stephens’ remaining arguments -- the correctness of the Spears
transcript and the purported reliance by the district court on the prison records -- and we
conclude that they are without merit.
AFFIRMED.
3