IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-40172
Conference Calendar
ROY L. RUSSELL,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
KATHLEEN HAWKS, Director; RONALD G. THOMPSON,
Regional Director; JOHN ASHCROFT, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 1:01-CV-560
--------------------
August 21, 2002
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Roy L. Russell, federal prisoner #21767-009, filed this
civil rights action, under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents,
403 U.S. 388 (1971), asserting that his due process rights were
violated because the defendants denied him a copy of the
district court’s findings of facts regarding disputed issues at
sentencing. The district court dismissed the complaint pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) & (ii), concluding both that the
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 02-40172
-2-
claim was frivolous and that Russell had failed to state a claim
upon which relief could be granted. Russell has not shown that
the defendants had a constitutional duty to supply the findings
in question. Additionally, the evidence shows that Russell was
told how to obtain a copy of the findings in the defendants’
responses to his prison grievances. As such, Russell has failed
to establish that he was deprived of a right secured by the
Constitution or laws of the United States. American Mfrs. Mut.
Ins. Co. v. Sullivan, 526 U.S. 40, 49-50 (1999) (42 U.S.C. § 1983
case). The district court did not err in dismissing Russell’s
complaint for failure to state a cause of action. Siglar v.
Hightower, 112 F.3d 191, 193 (5th Cir. 1997). Accordingly,
Russell's appeal is without arguable merit and is DISMISSED. 5TH
CIR. R. 42.2.
The district court’s dismissal of the original complaint and
the dismissal of this appeal each count as a strike for purposes
of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 387
(5th Cir. 1996). Russell is warned that if he accumulates three
strikes, he may not proceed IFP in any civil action or appeal
while he is incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he is
in imminent danger of serious physical injury. 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(g).
APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTIONS WARNING ISSUED.