IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-21268
Summary Calendar
ELZIA ALLEN RICHARDSON,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
ONE BLACK FEMALE CORRECTIONAL OFFICER; MIKE LIGHTSEY,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. H-00-CV-4181
--------------------
March 20, 2003
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Elzia Allen Richardson, Texas inmate # 522518, filed a civil
rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that an
unknown and unnamed defendant had unreasonably interfered with
his right to visitation with his family and that defendant Mike
Lightsey retaliated against him for filing a grievance against
the unnamed defendant by refusing to process his grievance forms.
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 01-21268
-2-
Richardson appeals the district court’s dismissal with prejudice
of his complaint.
Richardson “has no constitutional right to visitation
privileges.” Berry v. Brady, 192 F.3d 504, 508 (5th Cir. 1999).
Thus, Richardson’s contentions, that he has a liberty interest in
visitation privileges, that the prison policies on visitation
created a liberty interest, and that prison officials’ failure
to follow TDCJ policies, do not present constitutional issues and
do not state cognizable claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Doe
v. Rains County Indep. Sch. Dist., 66 F.3d 1402, 1406 (5th Cir.
1995). The district court properly dismissed Richardson’s claim
against the unnamed defendant pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)
(2)(B)(ii) for failure to state a claim.
After conducting a de novo review, we conclude that there
was no error in the district court’s summary judgment dismissal
of Richardson’s claims against Lightsey. Richardson’s claim that
Lightsey denied him access to the courts by denying him access
to the grievance process fails, as a matter of law, because
Richardson has neither alleged nor shown that his position as a
litigant was prejudiced. See Walker v. Navarro County Jail,
4 F.3d 410, 413 (5th Cir. 1993). Richardson’s retaliation claim
also fails, as a matter of law, for two reasons. First, it fails
because Richardson failed to state a claim of the violation of a
specific constitutional right, in this case the right of access
to the courts. See Tighe v. Wall, 100 F.3d 41, 42 (5th Cir.
No. 01-21268
-3-
1996). Second, it fails because Richardson’s bald allegations of
a conspiracy between Lightsey and Richardson are not sufficient
to allege a retaliatory motive on Lightsey’s part. See id.
By failing to argue on appeal the propriety of the district
court’s finding that the defendants, to the extent that they were
sued in their official capacities, are entitled to Eleventh
Amendment immunity, Richardson has abandoned that issue.
See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993). The
judgment of the district court dismissing Richardson’s 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 complaint with prejudice is AFFIRMED.