Shaw v. Pittman - Case Law

                 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      For the Fifth Circuit



                          No. 97-20615
                        Summary Calendar


                         OSCAR L. SHAW,

                                             Plaintiff-Appellant,


                             VERSUS


  VERNON K. PITTMAN, Major, JASON COLLIER; M. DODSON, Captain;
          W. DOSSEY; UNKNOWN ERDMAN; JOSEPH C. KOVACS;
                 UNKNOWN ASCHBER; F. E. FIGUEROA,

                                            Defendants-Appellees.




          Appeal from the United States District Court
               For the Southern District of Texas
                         (H-96-CV-3780)
                         April 30, 1998


Before WISDOM, DUHÉ, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

     Oscar L. Shaw, Texas prisoner # 646048, filed a § 1983 action

against numerous officials of the Texas Department of Criminal

Justice in which he made the following complaints: the defendants

(1) unlawfully disciplined him on three occasions, (2) retaliated


     *
      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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
against him for filing a civil action, (3) denied him access to the

law library and indigent supplies, and (4) delayed reordering his

medications.     The magistrate judge to whom the case was referred

ordered Shaw to file a more definite statement and to respond to

the order within 30 days.      Shaw did not comply with the order.

Almost five months later, the district court dismissed Shaw’s

original complaint without prejudice for failure to comply with the

magistrate judge’s order.2   Shaw timely filed notice of the present

appeal.    We affirm.

     The district court allowed Shaw approximately five months to

file a more definite statement.    He did not do so, even though the

magistrate judge expressly cautioned him against such delinquency.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing

Shaw’s claim without prejudice for failing to comply with the order

to file a more definite statement.3

     AFFIRMED.




     2
       The magistrate judge’s order expressly stated that “failure
to comply as directed may result in the dismissal of this action.”
     3
         See McCullough v. Lynaugh, 835 F.2d 1126 (5th Cir. 1988).

                                  2