IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-20110
Conference Calendar
LINROY DAVIS, JR.,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
JERRY GREEN; DAVE SNOOK,
Defendants-Appellees.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. H-93-CV-336
- - - - - - - - - -
February 12, 1998
Before SMITH, EMILIO M. GARZA, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Linroy Davis, Jr., Texas prisoner #585951, appeals from the
judgment for the defendants in his prisoner civil-rights action.
Davis requests appointment of counsel on appeal; his motion is
DENIED. Davis contends that he was unable to obtain disciplinary
records after requesting them; that the defendants violated
prison rules; that defendant Green assaulted him in violation of
the Eighth Amendment; that the defendants discriminated against
him and were deliberately indifferent to his safety; that a
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 97-20110
-2-
witness who was under subpoena failed to appear at trial; that
the jurors in his trial were unfair; that summary judgment was
inappropriate in his case; and that the district court erred by
failing to appoint counsel to represent him.
Davis has failed to brief for appeal his contention that he
was unable to obtain disciplinary records. Grant v. Cuellar, 59
F.3d 523, 524-25 (5th Cir. 1995). Davis’s contention that
summary judgment was inappropriate is without a factual basis;
his case went to trial. We cannot review Davis’s contentions
implicating the evidence at his trial or the alleged unfairness
of the jury; Davis has failed to provide us with a trial
transcript, as it is his duty to do. Powell v. Estelle, 959 F.2d
22, 26 (5th Cir. 1992). Davis did not seek appointment of trial
counsel; the district court need not have appointed counsel sua
sponte. See Jackson v. Dallas Police Dep’t, 811 F.2d 260, 261
(5th Cir. 1986).
Davis’s appeal is frivolous and therefore is dismissed. We
caution Davis that any additional frivolous appeals filed by him
or on his behalf will invite the imposition of sanctions. To
avoid sanctions, Davis is further cautioned to review any pending
appeals to ensure that they do not raise arguments that are
frivolous.
APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.