IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 98-40663
Summary Calendar
WILLIE CRAWFORD BENNETT,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
JAMES A. COLLINS ET AL.,
Defendants,
TOMMY LANE; GEORGE OLIVARRI;
THOMAS SMITH,
Defendants-Appellees.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. C-95-CV-145
- - - - - - - - - -
April 21, 1999
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Willie Crawford Bennett, Texas prisoner # 674077, appeals
from the district court’s order granting summary judgment in
favor of the defendants in his civil rights complaint brought
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Bennett argues that prison guards
were deliberately indifferent to his safety. We have reviewed
the record and the briefs of the parties, and we hold that the
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 98-40663
-2-
district court did not err in determining that the prison guards’
conduct in response to the altercation involving Bennett and
another prisoner was objectively reasonable under the
circumstances presented and in light of the prison policy
addressing such situations. Accordingly, the determination that
the defendants were qualifiedly immune from suit on Bennett’s
claim was not erroneous. See Rankin v. Klevenhagen, 5 F.3d 103,
105 (5th Cir. 1993).
Bennett also contends that the district court erred by
dismissing his claim concerning his access to the courts.
Bennett has not shown, and does not allege, that he had “no
access to any library or any legal assistance.” See Brewer v.
Wilkinson, 3 F.3d 816, 821 (5th Cir. 1993). Nor has he shown
that prison officials impeded his ability “to prepare and
transmit a necessary legal document to a court.” See Pembroke v.
Wood County, 981 F.2d 225, 229 (5th Cir. 1993). Accordingly, the
district court did not err by dismissing the claim.
The district court’s judgment should be AFFIRMED. Bennett’s
motion for the appointment of counsel should be DENIED.
JUDGMENT AFFIRMED; MOTION DENIED.