IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-11516
Summary Calendar
DAMON BANKHEAD,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
RONALD DREWRY; PAUL DALTON;
CRAIG RAINES; THOMAS PEAVY, III,
Defendants-Appellees.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 1:96-CV-148-BA
- - - - - - - - - -
November 25, 1997
Before WISDOM, DUHÉ and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Damon Bankhead, Texas prisoner # 645905, filed a civil
rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against several employees
of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice - Institutional
Division (TDCJ-ID), alleging that prison guards violated his
constitutional rights by not allowing him to use a particular
restroom to cleanse himself prior to Ramadan prayer. Bankhead
also alleged that he was retaliated against, in violation of his
constitutional rights, for filing a grievance related to the
above incident. The district court dismissed Bankhead’s case
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 96-11516
-2-
under the new screening provision of the Prison Litigation Reform
Act (PLRA), 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, because he had failed to state a
claim upon which relief may be granted. The district court did
not commit reversible error. We affirm.
Bankhead does not allege that he was unable to pray. He has
not shown that the instructions to use a different restroom
interfered with his right to practice his religion in any
significant manner. Pedraza v. Meyer, 919 F.2d 317, 320 (5th
Cir. 1990); O'Lone v. Estate of Shabazz, 482 U.S. 342, 345
(1987). Bankhead has failed to state a claim upon which relief
can be granted. The district court properly dismissed his claim.
With respect to the allegation that prison officials
transferred him in retaliation for filing the exercise-of-
religion claim, Bankhead has failed to show any direct evidence
of retaliatory motive or alleged a chronology of events from
which retaliation might be plausibly inferred. Whittington v.
Lynaugh, 842 F.2d 818, 819-21 (5th Cir. 1988); see also Woods v.
Smith, 60 F.3d 1161, 1166 (5th Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 116 S.
Ct. 800 (1996). Bankhead argues that the transfer was to prevent
his pursuing his grievance, but he admitted that his grievance
was processed even after the transfer was effectuated.
Bankhead’s claim is without merit.
AFFIRMED.