IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 98-40305
Summary Calendar
MICHAEL BELLE,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
MARK DAVIS ET AL.,
Defendants-Appellees.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. C-97-CV-251
- - - - - - - - - -
March 24, 1999
Before DAVIS, DUHE’, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Michael Belle, Texas prisoner #476226, appeals from the
dismissal of his civil rights action as frivolous. Belle
contends that the district court committed procedural errors when
considering his case; that defendant Mark Davis retaliated
against him for his use of the prison grievance system; that
Davis and other defendants deprived him of food, recreation, and
showers and conspired to do so; that defendant Dixon deprived him
of adequate ventilation in his cell; that Davis wrote a false
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 98-40305
-2-
offense report and deprived him of due process by having him
placed on restriction without being found guilty of a major
infraction; that Davis and Dixon were responsible for placing him
near a prison gang; that prisoner “Pony” was liable for spearing
him and that “Pony” and other gang members conspired with Davis;
and that defendants D.W. Price and Sylvia Tapia deprived him of
adequate medical care, covered up the attack by “Pony,” and
conspired against him.
Belle failed to object to the magistrate judge’s report and
recommendations. Accordingly, our review is for plain error.
Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Assn., 79 F.3d 1415, 1428-29 (5th
Cir. 1996)(en banc).
Belle has failed to brief his contentions that the district
court erred by failing to allow him to engage in discovery (with
the exception of his claim concerning depositions regarding
Dixon’s alleged policy of allowing black inmates to be attacked);
that Davis retaliated against him; that the 24-hour deprivation
of food, recreation, and showers violated the Cruel and Unusual
Punishment Clause; that inadequate ventilation in his cell
violated the Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause; that Davis
wrote a false offense report and deprived him of due process;
that Davis was responsible for his placement near the prison
gang; that Tapia covered up the attack by “Pony”; or that Price
covered up the attack and failed to protect him. We do not
consider those contentions. See Andrews v. Collins, 21 F.3d 612,
632 (5th Cir. 1994).
Regarding Belle’s remaining procedural contentions, we have
No. 98-40305
-3-
reviewed his brief and the record and we find Belle’s contentions
frivolous. Regarding Belle’s remaining substantive contentions,
we have reviewed Belle’s brief and the record and we find Belle’s
contentions frivolous. Accordingly, we dismiss Belle’s appeal
essentially for the reasons stated by the district court. See
Belle v. Davis, No. C-97-CV-251 (S.D. Tex. Sep. 26, 1997).
APPEAL DISMISSED. 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.