UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
_____________________
No. 98-41311
Summary Calendar
_____________________
FELIX JEROME HARRIS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
ANDERSON, Assistant Warden,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. C-98-CV-49
August 17, 1999
Before SMITH, BARKSDALE, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:1
Felix Jerome Harris, Texas prisoner #338572, maintains, pro
se, that the district court erred in dismissing his 42 U.S.C. §
1983 complaint. He contends that he was denied due process because
he was transferred to a close custody lockdown unit before
receiving a hearing on a disciplinary charge; and that he was kept
in the lockdown unit after the hearing, although such status was
not part of his punishment. (Other claims raised in the district
1
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
- 1 -
court, in which Harris asserted that he should be restored lost
good-time credits and that he was denied his right to practice his
religion while in lockdown status, have not been briefed on appeal
and are therefore waived. Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 225 (5th
Cir. 1993).)
Having reviewed the record, including the transcript of the
Spears hearing2, and Harris’ brief, we find no nonfrivolous
appellate issues. “[A]dministrative segregation, without more,
does not constitute a deprivation of a constitutionally cognizable
liberty interest.” Luken v. Scott, 71 F.3d 192, 193 (5th Cir.
1995). A hearing held within ten days of placing a prisoner in
administrative segregation has been held to be sufficient to
prevent a due process violation. Id. at 194. And, the three or
four days that Harris was confined to the lockdown unit after his
hearing do not provide extraordinary circumstances that would raise
a claim of more limited incarceration conditions to the level of a
constitutional violation. See Pichardo v. Kinker, 73 F.3d 612, 613
(5th Cir. 1996). Accordingly, the magistrate judge did not abuse
her discretion in dismissing Harris’ claim as frivolous. See
Siglar v. Hightower, 112 F.3d 191, 193 (5th Cir. 1997). Harris’
2
Spears v. McCotter, 766 F.2d 179 (5th Cir. 1985).
- 2 -
appeal is DISMISSED as frivolous. (Harris’ motion for an
evidentiary or Spears hearing is DENIED.)
DISMISSED
- 3 -