IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-11294
Summary Calendar
MARK ANTHONY CLARK,
also known as Kevin Frank Carter,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
JOHN DOE, 1, Drug Enforcement Agency;
JANE DOE, #1, Booking Officer; DR. VERNON FARTHING;
JOHN DOE, 2, Sergeant Classification Officer;
DON ADDINGTON, Jail Administrator;
D.L. “SONNY” KEESEE, Sheriff,
Defendants-Appellees.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 5:97-CV-78-C
- - - - - - - - - -
August 20, 1998
Before JONES, SMITH, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Mark Anthony Clark, federal prisoner # 26409-077, has
appealed the dismissal as frivolous of his civil rights action,
based on events which allegedly occurred when he was a Lubbock
County Jail (“the Jail”) inmate. We AFFIRM.
Clark alleged claims (1) that he was denied medical
treatment for tuberculosis; (2) that he was housed under
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 97-11294
-2-
overcrowded, unsafe conditions; (3) that he was exposed to
harmful environmental tobacco smoke; and (4) that he was placed
in administrative segregation without due process. The
magistrate judge filed a report recommending dismissal of the
action, based on Clark’s answers to a questionnaire and his
medical and other jail records. See Eason v. Thaler, 14 F.3d 8,
9 (5th Cir. 1994); Banuelos v. McFarland, 41 F.3d 232, 233-34
(5th Cir. 1995).
The magistrate judge notified Clark of the necessity for
filing objections to the report, citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a) and
other authorities. However, Clark made only a general objection
that his claims were not frivolous.
In the final order of dismissal with prejudice, the district
court observed that Clark’s objections were inadequate, then
accepted the magistrate judge’s report after de novo review.
Under these circumstances, Clark is not entitled to relief on
appeal unless there was plain error in the district court
proceedings. See Douglass v. United Services Auto. Ass’n, 79
F.3d 1415, 1428-29 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc).
Under the plain-error rule, if an appellant shows clear or
obvious error that affects his substantial rights, this court has
discretion to correct a forfeited error that seriously affects
the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial
proceedings. See United States v. Calverley, 37 F.3d 160, 162-64
(5th Cir. 1994) (en banc). When the nature of the claimed error
is a question of fact, however, the possibility that such a
finding could rise to the level of obvious error required to meet
No. 97-11294
-3-
part of the standard for plain error is remote. Robertson v.
Plano City of Texas, 70 F.3d 21, 23 (5th Cir. 1995).
Clark’s appeal is based on his contention that findings of
fact stated in the magistrate judge’s report are erroneous, based
on his alleged recollection of what happened to him in the Jail.
Accordingly, Clark is not entitled to relief on grounds of plain
error. See Robertson, 70 F.3d at 23.
JUDGMENT AFFIRMED.