IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-11438
Summary Calendar
JOHN H. CLOUD,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 3:94-CV-2224
September 29, 1997
Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM, AND DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
John H. Cloud, Texas prisoner # 749521, filed this appeal of
the district court’s judgment dismissing his Federal Tort Claims
Act action against the United States.
Cloud argues that the district court changed the trial date
without notice and failed to provide adequate time for him to
prepare for trial. The record does not support Cloud’s claim
that the district court failed to provide adequate notice of the
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
No. 96-11438
-2-
trial date or adequate time to prepare for trial.
Cloud also argues that the district court erred in not
issuing a “bench warrant” ordering him transferred to a Dallas
area prison at least ten days prior to the trial date to provide
him time for trial preparation. Cloud has not cited any legal
authority to show that he has such a right. Further, the record
shows that Cloud was notified of the trial date in April 1996 and
again in July 1996, giving him adequate time to prepare for the
trial. The district did not abuse its discretion by failing to
transfer him to a Dallas area prison ten business days before
trial.
Finally, Cloud argues that a “manifest error of law”
occurred as a result of his transfer to another prison facility
within the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. Cloud contends
that the district court should have allowed additional time for
obtaining his appearance in the event that he is transferred to
another prison. The record shows that Cloud was transferred to
another Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ) facility.
Cloud failed to advise the district court of his transfer to
another prison facility. Nevertheless, the record shows that
Cloud was notified of the trial date and that he was present for
trial. Cloud has not shown that he was prejudiced as a result of
any delay in notice of the trial date caused by his transfer to
another prison. The district court did not abuse its discretion
by issuing a writ and order of habeas corpus without first
No. 96-11438
-3-
determining whether Cloud had been transferred to another TDCJ
prison facility and by not allowing additional time for his
transfer for trial.
Cloud’s motions to supplement the record are DENIED.
Cloud’s “Motion for Leave to Clarify, Correct, and Draw the
Court’s Attention to Needed Issues” is DENIED.
AFFIRMED; MOTIONS DENIED.