IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 98-20261
Conference Calendar
DANNY HENRY,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
K. COBBS, Officer;
T. FITCH, Officer,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. H-97-CV-1164
--------------------
August 27, 1999
Before KING, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Danny Henry, Texas prisoner # 688114, appeals the district
court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 lawsuit as frivolous,
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). He renews his claim
that the defendant prison guards verbally threatened and
intimidated him, in violation of the Eighth Amendment. He
additionally asserts, for the first time on appeal, that he is
entitled to relief under the Texas Tort Claims Act.
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 98-20261
-2-
Henry’s claims are not actionable under § 1983. Verbal
threats and name-calling by prison guards do not amount to a
constitutional violation. See Bender v. Brumley, 1 F.3d 271, 274
n.4 (5th Cir. 1993)(pretrial detainee case); Lynch v. Cannatella,
810 F.3d 1363, 1376 (5th Cir. 1987). Section 1983 is not the
appropriate vehicle for Henry’s newly-raised state-law tort
claim. See Johnson v. Dallas Indep. Sch. Dist., 38 F.3d 198, 200
(5th Cir. 1994).
Because Henry did not assert a claim of a constitutional
violation, the district court did not abuse its discretion in
dismissing the complaint as frivolous. See Siglar v. Hightower,
112 F.3d 191, 193 (5th Cir. 1997). Henry’s appeal is without
arguable merit and is thus frivolous. Howard v. King, 707 F.2d
215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983). Because the appeal is frivolous, it
is dismissed. 5th Cir. R. 42.2.
APPEAL DISMISSED.