IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-11268
Summary Calendar
JIMMY ROY DAVIDSON,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
OSCAR STRAIN ET AL.,
Defendants,
OSCAR STRAIN; RONALD D. DREWRY;
C. RAINES, Assistant Warden,
Defendants-Appellees.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 1:95-CV-144-BA
- - - - - - - - - -
June 19, 1998
Before JOLLY, BENAVIDES, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Jimmy Roy Davidson, Texas prisoner # 612588, has appealed
the district court’s dismissal of his claims against Assistant
Warden C. Raines, Captain Oscar Strain, and correctional officer
M. Baker, all of whom he sued in their individual capacities.
Davidson’s second amended complaint challenges 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 96-11268
-2-
constitutionality of a disciplinary hearing at which he was
convicted of having failed to obey an order which Baker gave him.
Davidson also requests monetary damages for having been required
to serve part of his sentence under cell, commissary, and
property restrictions, both before and after Raines set aside the
sentence and conviction.
The district court held that Davidson had failed to state a
claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, because his disciplinary conviction
did not result in the loss of any good-conduct time. Davidson’s
contention that he is entitled to relief under § 1983 because the
conviction deprived him of the opportunity to earn good-conduct
time has no merit. See Luken v. Scott, 71 F.3d 192, 193 (5th
Cir. 1995).
Davidson contends that he is entitled to relief because the
appellee violated provisions of an unpublished 1992 consent
judgment in Ruiz v. Estelle, 503 F. Supp. 1265 (S.D. Tex. 1980),
aff’d in part, rev’d in part, 679 F.2d 1115, amended in part,
vacated in part, 688 F.2d 266 (5th Cir. 1982). There is no merit
to this contention. See Green v. McKaskle, 788 F.2d 1116, 1123
(5th Cir. 1983).
The district court’s final order refutes Davidson’s
contention that the district court impermissibly granted summary
judgment to the appellees. Finally, Davidson is not entitled to
relief on grounds that the district court erred by considering
his motion to alter or amend the judgment as a motion for new
No. 96-11268
-3-
trial, and by refusing to consider supporting materials which the
court received two days after denying the motion.
JUDGMENT AFFIRMED.