UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
For the Fifth Circuit
No. 97-20657
Summary Calendar
MICHAEL BOHANNAN,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
VERSUS
TDCJ-INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION; ET AL.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
For the Southern District of Texas
(H-95-CV-1435)
August 20, 1998
Before DAVIS, DUHÉ, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:1
Michael Bohannan, Texas inmate # 366986, appeals the district
court’s grant of summary judgment for the defendants in his civil
rights suit filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He also has filed
a motion for leave to file a reply brief which was filed out of
time. His motion to file the reply brief is GRANTED.
Bohannan alleged that he was denied access to the courts
because he was deprived of an adequate law library while he was
1
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
incarcerated at the San Saba Transfer Facility in Texas. He argues
that none of the defendants, all public officials, were entitled to
immunity from suit. We have reviewed the record and parties’
briefs and AFFIRM the district court’s grant of summary judgment
for essentially the same reasons set forth by the district court.
Bohannan v. TDCJ, No. H-95-CV-1435 (S.D. Tex. June 25, 1997).
Bohannan argues that the district court failed to address his
claim regarding the lack of adequate medical care. He abandoned
that claim, however, when he submitted in his first more definite
statement that he had since received the medical treatment and that
he was not interested in obtaining injunctive relief for the same.
He also argues that the district court failed to address his claim
that the defendants interfered with his legal mail. Even if
Bohannan properly raised the claim in the district court, the fact
that this court reversed the district court’s dismissal of his suit
for failure to provide a second more definite statement indicates
that the alleged interference did not prejudice him as a litigant.
See Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 351 (1996). Last, Bohannan
argues that the district court failed to address his claim that he
was retaliated against for filing the instant law suit. Bohannan
never sought to amend his complaint to add this claim.
Additionally, Bohannan’s argument that he was entitled to the
appointment of counsel fails. See Ulmer v. Chancellor, 691 F.2d
209, 212 (5th Cir. 1982).
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
2