IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 98-40789
Conference Calendar
STANLEY T. ALEXANDER,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
ORLANDO PEREZ; R. WALLACE; ANGLE, Ms.; GEORGE
STEPHENSON; DAVID. M. BLACKWELL; DONALD J. HULSEY,
Defendants-Appellees.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. C-98-CV-20
- - - - - - - - - -
June 15, 1999
Before EMILIO M. GARZA, BENAVIDES, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Stanley T. Alexander (#695814), a state prisoner, has
appealed the magistrate judge’s judgment dismissing his civil
rights action as frivolous. Alexander contends that the district
court dismissed his due process and retaliation claims
prematurely. Alexander has no cognizable claim related to his
custody classification. Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472 (1995);
see Madison v. Parker, 104 F.3d 765, 768 (5th Cir. 1997). The
magistrate judge did not abuse her discretion in determining that
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 98-40789
-2-
Alexander had failed to allege a chronology of events from which
it could be inferred that the defendants were motivated to
retaliate against him. See Johnson v. Rodriguez, 110 F.3d 299,
310 (5th Cir. 1997); Woods v. Smith, 60 F.3d 1161, 1166 (5th Cir.
1995).
Alexander contends that the magistrate judge was biased
against him. Adverse rulings alone do not call into question a
judge’s impartiality. Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555
(1994).
In the district court, Alexander contended that the
defendants conspired against him, that Wallace was not properly
trained and supervised, and that his right to equal protection
had been violated. Alexander has abandoned these issues by
failing to present any argument regarding them on appeal. See
Applewhite v. Reichhold Chemicals, Inc., 67 F.3d 571, 573 (5th
Cir. 1995).
Because the appeal is frivolous, it is DISMISSED. See
Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983); 5TH CIR.
R. 42.2. The dismissal of this appeal as frivolous counts as a
strike for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). We caution Alexander
that once he accumulates three strikes, he may not proceed in
forma pauperis in any civil action or appeal filed while he is
incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he is under
imminent danger of serious physical injury. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(g).
APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.