IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-30918
Summary Calendar
GOLITH ADAMS, JR.,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
STATE OF LOUISIANA; RICHARD L. STALDER; JAMES LEBLANC;
LESLIE PERKINS, RN, DCI; UNKNOWN STEVENS, LPN, DCI;
UNKNOWN RICHARDSON, Correctional Officer, LSP;
UNKNOWN BELL, Captain/Lieutenant, Correctional Officer, DCI;
JULIE BEARES, LPN, DCI; UNKNOWN JUAREZ, Doctor, DCI,
Defendants-Appellees.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Louisiana
USDC No. 96-CV-516
- - - - - - - - - -
November 19, 1998
Before EMILIO M. GARZA, DeMOSS, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Golith Adams, Jr., appeals the district court’s judgment
dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights action without
prejudice to any state-law claims. Adams’s motion for the
appointment of counsel to help him obtain a copy of his brief is
DENIED.
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 97-30918
-2-
Adams argues that the district court erred in dismissing his
deliberate-indifference claims against Stalder, LeBlanc, Stevens,
Beares(Reames), and Juarez, under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) for
failure to state a claim. We have reviewed the pleadings
throughly and affirm the grant of the motion essentially for the
reasons relied on by the district court in Adams v. Stalder et
al., No. 96-516-B-M1 (M.D. La. Jul. 30, 1997).
Adams has not briefed the issues whether the district court
erred by failing to dismiss his claims against the State of
Louisiana or in dismissing his false-disciplinary-reports claim.
Although pro se litigants’ briefs are afforded liberal
construction, see Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972),
even pro se litigants must brief arguments in order to preserve
them. Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 225 (5th Cir. 1993).
Because Adams has failed to brief these issues, he has abandoned
them.
Adams argues that the district court erred in granting the
motion for summary judgment filed by Bell, Richardson, and
Perkins. We have reviewed throughly the pleadings, exhibits,
arguments, and briefs and affirm summary judgment essentially
for the reasons relied on by the district court in Adams v.
Stalder et al., No. 96-516-B-M1 (M.D. La. Jul. 30, 1997).
Adams asserts that the district court erred in dismissing
his prison-transfer claim as frivolous. He argues that he was
transferred in retaliation for his use of the prison grievance
procedure and that Stalder and LeBlanc authorized the transfer
out of malice and to punish Adams. The magistrate judge did not
No. 97-30918
-3-
address Adams’s assertion that the transfer was made in
retaliation for his use of the prison grievance procedure. In
his objections to the magistrate judge’s report and
recommendation, Adams did not argue that the magistrate judge
failed to address his retaliation claim and did not reargue his
allegations of a retaliatory motive. Because Adams did not raise
this issue in his objections to the magistrate judge's report and
recommendations, we review it for plain error. Douglass v.
United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1428-29 (5th Cir. 1996)
(en banc). The district court did not err in dismissing the
claim. Adams has no constitutional right to be housed in a
particular facility, Olim v. Wakinekona, 461 U.S. 238, 244-45
(1983), and alleged no more than his personal belief that the
transfer was taken in retaliation for his grievances. See Woods
v. Smith, 60 F.3d 1161, 1164 (5th Cir. 1995); Johnson v.
Rodriguez, 110 F.3d 299, 310 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 118 S. Ct.
559 (1997).
Adams also argues that the district court abused its
discretion by declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction
because “the issue of a novel or complex state law violation
[was] not the gist of [his] complaint.” This argument, which
Adams did not raise in his objections to the magistrate judge’s
report and recommendation, lacks merit. A district court may
decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law
claims, inter alia, if the court has dismissed all claims over
which it has original jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).
AFFIRMED; MOTION DENIED.