Belle v. Davis

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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.