IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
_____________________
No. 00-30137
Summary Calendar
_____________________
FREDDIE TAYLOR,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
DEWAYNE CROWELL; MAXIE, Sergeant;
VIVIAN, Sergeant; PERKINS, Sergeant;
G. HILLMAN, Assistant Warden,
Defendants-Appellees.
_________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court for the
Western District of Louisiana
USDC No. 99-CV-1751
_________________________________________________________________
August 17, 2000
Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Freddie Taylor, Louisiana state prisoner # 100971, appeals the
district court’s dismissal of his civil rights complaint as
frivolous and for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and (ii). A dismissal of a complaint as
frivolous under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) is reviewed for an abuse of
discretion. See Ruiz v. United States, 160 F.3d 273, 275 (5th Cir.
1998). A dismissal for failure to state a claim under
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) is reviewed under the same de novo standard as
is employed in reviewing dismissals under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).
Black v. Warren, 134 F.3d 732, 733-34 (5th Cir. 1998).
The district court reasoned that Taylor’s due process claims
were barred under the Parratt/Hudson1 doctrine. Because Taylor
does not argue his due process claims on appeal and does not
address the dismissal of the claims as barred by Parratt/Hudson, he
has abandoned his due process claims for purposes of this appeal.
See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993). He
also has abandoned any claim of the denial of his right to freedom
of speech by failing to raise the claim on appeal.
Taylor argues that the defendants’ interference with his legal
mail denied him access to the courts. He contends that the
defendants hindered his ability to litigate his claim of cruel and
unusual punishment in Cause No. 99-1639, which is currently pending
in the Western District of Louisiana. Taylor does not suggest that
his position as a litigant actually was prejudiced by the purported
interference with his legal mail. See Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S.
343, 350-51 (1996). Taylor has not demonstrated error in the
district court’s dismissal of his claim of denial of access to the
courts.
1
Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527, 541-44 (1981), overruled in
part not relevant here, Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327 (1986);
Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 533 (1984).
2
For the first time on appeal, Taylor argues that the
defendants violated the Fourth Amendment by interfering with his
legal mail, that in an effort to hinder his ability to litigate a
claim of cruel and unusual punishment. Taylor has not demonstrated
plain error. See Robertson v. Plano City of Texas, 70 F.3d 21, 22
(5th Cir. 1995).
A F F I R M E D.
3