United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT April 15, 2003
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 02-31019
Summary Calendar
DERRICK JEROME ALLEN,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
THEODORE JOHNSON; JIM WILKINSON;
MONA HEYSE; EDUCATION DEPARTMENT
WINN CORRECTION CENTER; CORRECTION
CORPORATION OF AMERICA; LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT
OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND CORRECTIONS;
PONTIAC BUSINESS INSTITUTE,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
USDC No. 02-CV-884
--------------------
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Derrick Jerome Allen, Louisiana prisoner #295151, appeals
the 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) dismissal as frivolous of his 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 civil rights lawsuit. The district court’s dismissal is
reviewed for an abuse of discretion. Norton v. Dimazana, 122
F.3d 286, 291 (5th Cir. 1997).
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 02-31019
-2-
Allen argues that the district court erred in dismissing his
claims of retaliation and sexual abuse. He briefs no argument
regarding his claims of excessive force or discrimination, and
those claims are therefore waived. See Yohey v. Collins, 985
F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993). Although he conclusionally
asserts that the district court erred in denying him class
certification, Allen fails to brief any argument challenging the
district court’s determination that he had not met any of the
requirements for certification under FED. R. CIV. P. 23, and he
has thus waived the argument. See Yohey, 985 F.2d at 224-25.
Allen’s claim of sexual abuse was properly dismissed
because, even if it is assumed that Theodore Johnson touched him
in a sexual manner during routine pat-down searches, Allen has
not alleged sufficiently serious assaultive behavior or resulting
injury to show a constitutional deprivation. See Farmer v.
Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 833-34, 847 (1994); Hudson v. McMillian,
503 U.S. 1, 9 (1992); see also Boddie v. Schneider, 105 F.3d 857,
860-61 (2d Cir. 1997); 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(e). The retaliation
similarly fails because Allen has not presented direct evidence
of a retaliatory motive, nor has he sufficiently alleged a
chronology of events from which retaliation may be inferred. See
Jones v. Greninger, 188 F.3d 322, 324-25 (5th Cir. 1999); Woods
v. Smith, 60 F.3d 1161, 1166 (5th Cir. 1995).
No. 02-31019
-3-
Allen has not demonstrated an abuse of discretion on the
district court’s part. Its judgment is therefore AFFIRMED.
Allen’s motion for the appointment of counsel is DENIED.
AFFIRMED; MOTION DENIED.