IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
__________________
No. 96-50092
Summary Calendar
__________________
GLEN C. JAMES,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
JAMES A. COLLINS, Director, ET AL,
Defendants-Appellees.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. SA-95-CV-1240
- - - - - - - - - -
May 17, 1996
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DUHE’, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Glen C. James appeals the dismissal, without prejudice, of
his civil rights complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d).
James fails to challenge the dismissal of the claims against the
defendants in their official capacities and the dismissal,
without prejudice, of his supplemental state-law claims. These
issues are deemed abandoned on appeal. See Eason v. Thaler, 14
F.3d 8, 9 n.1 (5th Cir. 1994).
*
Pursuant to Local Rule 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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 Local Rule
47.5.4.
No. 96-50092
-2-
James raises the following arguments: 1) his property,
consisting of legal and religious materials, was taken for an
unreasonable length of time pursuant to a search conducted by
prison officials upon James' transfer into administrative
segregation (ad seg); 2) some of the returned property was
damaged; 3) approximately twelve items consisting of legal
materials were confiscated and destroyed pursuant to the prison
policy covering nuisances; 4) the destruction of newspaper
clippings, which he intended to offer as exhibits at an upcoming
trial, amounted to the denial of access to the courts;
5) Administrative Directive 03.50, specifying what all ad seg
inmates are permitted to possess as property, is unconstitutional
because is impinges on an ad-seg inmate's right to access to the
courts; 6) the withholding of his religious materials for fifteen
days violated his right to the free exercise of religion under
the First Amendment and under 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000bb - 2000bb-4;
7) the prison officials were deliberately indifferent to his
serious medical needs by confiscating three prescribed medicines;
8) the property room supervisor retaliated against James; and
9) the officer denying his grievance against the property room
supervisor was liable.
We have carefully reviewed the record and the appellate
arguments, and we detect no abuse of discretion by the district
court in dismissing these claims as frivolous.
AFFIRMED.