UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
_____________________
No. 97-40195
Summary Calendar
_____________________
THOMAS L. ATCHISON,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
JAMES A. COLLINS, DIRECTOR,
TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE,
INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION, ET AL.,
Defendants-Appellees.
_________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
(9:94-CV-94)
_________________________________________________________________
August 25, 1997
Before WIENER, BARKSDALE, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Thomas L. Atchison, Texas prisoner no. 605353, appeals, pro
se, the district court’s dismissal, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2), of his civil rights complaint. The record shows that
no defendant was deliberately indifferent to his Atchison’s serious
medical needs; therefore, we do not address his contention that the
district court erred by dismissing, as time-barred, those claims
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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 5TH CIR. R.
47.5.4.
against certain of the defendants. Varnado v. Lynaugh, 920 F.2d
320, 321 (5th Cir. 1991); Bickford v. International Speedway Corp.,
654 F.2d 1028, 1031 (5th Cir. 1981).
Atchison’s claim that Dr. Ronald Reed denied him medical care
is baseless. Moreover, the district court did not abuse its
discretion either by not ordering discovery on the claim of racial
discrimination or by dismissing the retaliation claims against Dr.
Reed and “John Doe”. Richardson v. Henry, 902 F.2d 414, 417 (5th
Cir.), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 901 (1990), and cert. denied, 498
U.S. 1069 (1991); Hale v. Harney, 786 F.2d 688, 690 (5th Cir.
1986).
Atchison’s motions for appointment of counsel, transfer of his
retaliation claims, discovery, reinstatement of his complaint, and
a hearing on “accrual” are DENIED.
The judgment is
AFFIRMED.