IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-20406
Summary Calendar
JOHN W. WINSLOW,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
CHARLES SMITH; ET AL.,
Defendants,
CHARLES SMITH; LINDA PATTERSON;
S. O. WOODS; M. COUNTZ, Warden;
R. BELANGER, Asst. Warden;
R. JONES, Asst. Warden;
L. HEUSZEL, Asst. Warden;
G. PIERSON, Asst. Warden;
H. TERRY, Asst. Warden,
Defendants-Appellees.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. H-94-CV-1777
- - - - - - - - - -
October 31, 1997
Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
John W. Winslow, Texas prisoner # 442811, appeals from the
district court’s grant of summary judgment as unopposed and
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 97-20406
-2-
dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint for lack of
prosecution. Winslow argues that the defendants intentionally
used the disciplinary process to prevent him from filing a timely
response to the summary judgment motion.
Even if his allegations are true, Winslow has not shown
prejudice because he was able to respond to the defendants’
summary judgment motion. Lewis v. Casey, 116 S. Ct. 2174, 2180
(1996). Although the district court erred in granting summary
judgment on the basis that Winslow had not responded to the
summary judgment motion, the grant of summary judgment was
appropriate. Sojourner T. v. Edwards, 974 F.2d 27, 30 (5th Cir.
1992) (permitting affirmance of judgment on any basis supported
by the record). The defendants met their initial burden of
showing that they were entitled to judgment, and Winslow’s
conclusional allegations and unsubstantiated assertions failed to
carry his burden of showing that they were not entitled to
judgment. Little v. Liquid Air Corp., 37 F.3d 1069, 1075 (5th
Cir. 1994) (en banc).
AFFIRMED.