Bodway v. Crystal City

                IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

                         FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

                         _____________________

                              No. 97-50155
                            Summary Calendar
                         _____________________


LOUIS SEAN BODWAY,

                                                   Plaintiff-Appellant,

                                     versus

CRYSTAL CITY DETENTION CENTER;
JIM GREER, Warden,

                                            Defendants-Appellees.
_________________________________________________________________

      Appeal from the United States District Court for the
                    Western District of Texas
                       USDC No. DR-96-CV-31
_________________________________________________________________
                        September 17, 1997
Before JOLLY, BENAVIDES, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

     Louis Sean Bodway, Missouri state prisoner #514692, argues

that the district court abused its discretion in dismissing his 42

U.S.C.   §   1983   complaint   as    frivolous.   He   argues   that   the

defendants deprived him of adequate medical care and that the

district court should have allowed him to amend his complaint to

state an actionable claim.




     *
      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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
     We have reviewed the record, including the transcript of the

Spears1    hearing,    the   opinion    of    the   district   court,   and   the

appellant’s brief, and affirm the dismissal of the complaint as

frivolous substantially for the reasons given by the district court

in support of its ruling.          See Bodway v. Crystal City Detention

Center, No. DR-96-CV-31 (W.D. Tex. Feb. 12, 1997).

     Bodway argues that if he had been given the opportunity to

amend his complaint in the district court, he could have stated an

actionable claim.        A pro se prisoner is entitled to factually

develop his complaint before a proper § 1915(e) determination can

be made.        See Eason v. Thaler, 14 F.3d 8, 9-10 (5th Cir. 1994).

Bodway made no reference to the warden during his testimony given

at the Spears hearing.        He did not seek in the district court to

amend     his   complaint    to   add   any   other   defendants   or   to    add

additional claims against the warden; nor has he argued on appeal

any specific additional facts that he would allege in an amended

complaint if the case was remanded to the district court for

further development.         Bodway has failed to demonstrate that the

district court abused its discretion in dismissing the complaint

against Greer as frivolous.         See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825,

837 (1994).



     1
        Spears v. McCotter, 766 F.2d 179 (5th Cir. 1985).




                                        -2-
     Bodway has not argued on appeal that his excessive-force claim

against a detention facility guard was improperly dismissed as

frivolous.   Thus, the claim is deemed abandoned on appeal.    See

Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748

(5th Cir. 1987).

                                                  A F F I R M E D.




                               -3-