IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 98-11431
Summary Calendar
RICHARD TERRANCE AYERS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
MARY LAMPERT, Mail Room Supervisor;
TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE,
INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 1:97-CV-237-BA
--------------------
November 26, 1999
Before DAVIS, EMILIO M. GARZA, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Richard Terrance Ayers, Texas prisoner No. 486361, appeals
the magistrate judge’s** summary judgment dismissal of his civil
rights complaint alleging that he was denied access to
publications on the pretextual grounds that they contained
racially inflammatory material or were from unauthorized sources.
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
**
The parties proceeded before the magistrate judge
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).
No. 98-11431
-2-
Ayers has failed to show that the magistrate judge erred in
determining that the book Settlers: The Myth of the White
Proletariat contained material which a reasonable person could
construe as likely to create prison disturbances. Chriceol v.
Phillips, 169 F.3d 313, 316-17 (5th Cir. 1999). Thus, Ayers has
no constitutional right to receive this material. Thornburgh v.
Abbott, 490 U.S. 401, 404 (1989); Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78,
89-91 (1987); see Green v. McKaskle, 788 F.2d 1116, 1123 (5th
Cir. 1986). Ayers’ allegation that he failed to receive a single
pamphlet sent by the Brew City Antiauthoritarian Collective,
which he alleges is a publication supplier approved by the Texas
Department of Criminal Justice, does not state a constitutional
violation. See Richardson v. McDonnell, 841 F.2d 120, 122 (5th
Cir. 1988) Because Ayers has failed to identify a violation of
his constitutional rights, we FIND IT UNNECESSARY TO ADDRESS his
arguments concerning the magistrate judge’s procedural handling
of the case. See Sojourner T v. Edwards, 974 F.2d 27, 30 (5th
Cir. 1992).
AFFIRMED.