United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT October 21, 2003
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 03-10373
Conference Calendar
WILLIAM G. WARNECKE,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
WAYNE SCOTT; ET AL.,
Defendants,
D. BOLLINGER; WILHELMENIA HOWARD;
M. CHERRY; KENYON,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 5:01-CV-151-BG
--------------------
Before KING, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
William G. Warnecke, Texas prisoner # 874942, appeals the
summary-judgment dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights
lawsuit alleging denial of access to the courts. Warnecke urges
that his unanswered requests for admissions, now deemed admitted,
entitle him to judgment in his favor.
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 03-10373
-2-
Warnecke also argues that the magistrate judge erred in
denying several of his pretrial motions as untimely and in
granting the appellees’ motion to seal their court-ordered
disclosures. He has not briefed any argument connecting the
denial of the pretrial motions to the dispositive summary-
judgment issues, and his argument that the magistrate judge’s
rulings were error is irrelevant. The challenge to the motion to
seal is similarly unavailing because, even if error, Warnecke has
not shown any resulting prejudice given that he either already
had or obtained through discovery the pertinent documents.
This court reviews a district court’s grant of summary
judgment de novo, applying the same standard as would the
district court. See Melton v. Teachers Ins. & Annuity Ass’n
of Am., 114 F.3d 557, 559 (5th Cir. 1997). Summary judgment
is proper where the pleadings and summary judgment evidence
present no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party
is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. See FED. R. CIV.
P. 56(c); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986).
As a general matter, lack of access to legal materials may
constitute an unconstitutional infringement on a prisoner’s right
of access to the courts. See Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817,
828 (1977). However, to state a claim for denial of access,
an inmate must demonstrate an actual injury as a result of the
defendant’s conduct. See Ruiz v. United States, 160 F.3d 273,
275 (5th Cir. 1998).
No. 03-10373
-3-
Warnecke renews his claim that he missed the deadline for
filing his petition for discretionary review (“PDR”) in his jury
case because he was transferred without his legal materials.
However, he makes no argument challenging the magistrate judges’s
conclusion that he failed to show any actual resulting injury
because he had ample time and materials to enable him to file the
jury-case PDR without the legal materials he left behind when he
was transferred.
Warnecke’s sole contention is that the deemed admissions
conclusively establish that he is entitled to relief. The argument
is unpersuasive. To the extent Warnecke relies on the admissions
to the effect that the defendants denied him access to the courts
by transferring him without legal materials, the “deemed
admissions” do not establish a right to recover because they do
not address any resulting injury. See Ruiz, 160 F.3d at 275.
Moreover, requests for admissions are properly used for facts or
facts as applied to law, not pure legal conclusions such as those
proposed by Warnecke. See In re Carney, 258 F.3d 415, 418 (5th
Cir. 2001); 8A Wright, Miller, & Cane, Federal Practice
& Procedure, § 2255 & n.8 (2003); see also FED. R. CIV. P. 36(a).
The judgment is AFFIRMED. Warnecke’s motion to strike the
appellees’ letter brief is DENIED.