IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-20987
Summary Calendar
KENNETH ELWOOD NARRON,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
CAROL VANCE ET AL.,
Defendants-Appellees.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. H-95-CV-327
- - - - - - - - - -
October 21, 1997
Before DUHÉ, DeMOSS, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Kenneth Elwood Narron appeals the district court’s dismissal
of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915A. Narron argues that the district court abused its
discretion in dismissing his Eighth Amendment conditions of
confinement and medical claims arising out of his alleged exposure
to the chemical “Scotchlite” manufactured by 3-M Company and used
at TDCJ-ID’s license plate plant. We have reviewed the record and
found no error in the reasoning of the district court in 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under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. 96-20987
-2-
dismissal of these claims. See Narron v. Vance, No. H-95-327 (S.D.
Tex., Sept. 13, 1996).
Narron argues that the district court abused its discretion
when it denied him permission to amend his complaint and in
limiting his amended complaint to ten pages. Narron did not in the
district court and still does not on appeal state what he intended
to allege in his amended complaint which would have changed the
outcome of this case. The district court did not abuse its
discretion in denying leave to amend the complaint. Ashe v.
Corley, 992 F.2d 540, 542 (5th Cir. 1993).
Narron argues that because 3-M supplied the chemical and
supervised its use, it acted under color of state law for § 1983
purposes. The fact that 3-M had a contract with TDCJ to supply a
chemical does not make 3-M a state actor. See Albright v. Longview
Police Dept., 884 F.2d 835, 840-41 (5th Cir. 1989)(hospital
contracted with state to operate and manage a facility; only
functional interrelationship was the lease; hospital not a state
actor).
Narron raises numerous other issues related to various motions
filed by him in the district court and denied as moot, such as
discovery matters, intervention, class action certification,
medical testing, TRO and permanent injunction, and air, water and
soil testing. Because Narron’s underlying claims were frivolous,
the district court properly denied these motions as moot.
No. 96-20987
-3-
Narron’s appeal is without arguable merit and, thus,
frivolous. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir.
1983). Because the appeal is frivolous, it is DISMISSED. See 5th
Cir. R. 42.2. Narron is cautioned that any future frivolous
appeals filed by him or on his behalf will invite the imposition of
sanctions. Narron is cautioned further to review any pending
appeals to ensure that they do not raise arguments that are
frivolous.
APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.