IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-50021
Summary Calendar
CLARE BETH MOORE,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
WAYNE SCOTT, Director, Texas
Department of Criminal Justice
Institutional Division; LINDA
AMENT; TERESA MOYA,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. W-00-CV-309
--------------------
December 16, 2002
Before DAVIS, WIENER, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Clare Beth Moore, Texas inmate # 778645, appeals the
dismissal of her civil rights suit filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983, for failure to state a claim. A complaint filed IFP may
be dismissed if it fails to state a claim on which relief may be
granted. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and 1915A. Our
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 02-50021
-2-
review is de novo standard. See Black v. Warren, 134 F.3d 732,
734 (5th Cir. 1998).
Moore argues that prison officials retaliated against her
for exercising her First Amendment rights. The facts which Moore
presents, however, do not supply direct evidence of motivation,
nor has she alleged a chronology of events from which retaliation
may plausibly be inferred. Woods v. Smith, 60 F.3d 1161, 1166
(5th Cir. 1995).
Moore argues that the district court erred when it dismissed
her claim that the defendants conspired to allow an inmate to
steal her craft supplies. Moore’s factual allegations assert no
more than a random and unauthorized deprivation of property, and
Texas provides an adequate post-deprivation remedy for such
claims. Therefore, Moore has no underlying constitutional right
in connection with the alleged conspiracy. Parratt v. Taylor,
451 U.S. 527, 541-44 (1981); Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 533
(1984); see also Murphy v. Collins, 26 F.3d 541, 543 (5th Cir.
1994).
Moore argues that she should have been allowed to amend her
complaint to allege that the defendants harassed her in
retaliation for filing the lawsuit by denying her access to the
courts and so that she could substitute defendants in their
official capacities, add defendants in their individual
capacities, ask for economic damages for the loss of earning
power in the craft shop, and ask for punitive damages. Because
No. 02-50021
-3-
the amendment Moore sought was futile, the district court’s
denial of her motion to amend should be affirmed. Avatar
Exploration, Inc. v. Chevron, U.S.A., Inc., 933 F.2d 314, 321
(5th Cir. 1991). Her argument that venue was improper is without
a legal basis. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
Moore’s various motions to supplement or amend her brief and
the record are DENIED.