United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS April 16, 2004
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 03-41685
Summary Calendar
DONNIE L SLOAN
Plaintiff - Appellant
v.
GARY L JOHNSON, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE,
GEERDES, Captain, JACKSON, Ms, JOHN DOE, Field Force Lieutenant
Defendants - Appellees
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. G-01-CV-413
--------------------
Before KING, Chief Judge and DeMOSS and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Donnie Sloan, Texas prisoner # 495302, appeals the district
court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1915A for failure to state a claim upon which relief
can be granted. He asserts that the district court abused its
discretion in denying him leave to amend his complaint before
dismissing it. Because the district court propounded
interrogatories to which Sloan responded, the court did not abuse
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 03-41685
-2-
its discretion. See Eason v. Thaler, 14 F.3d 8, 9 (5th Cir.
1994).
Sloan contends that the defendants violated his
constitutional rights by removing his racial classification
restrictions, which would allow him to be placed in a cell with a
black inmate. Racial segregation in prisons is unconstitutional,
except to the extent it is necessary for prison security and
discipline. Lee v. Washington, 390 U.S. 333, 333-34 (1968).
Sloan’s reliance on Lamar v. Coffield, 951 F. Supp. 629 (S.D.
Tex. 1996), and prison regulations is misplaced because
violations of either consent decrees or prison regulations alone
do not give rise to constitutional violations. Galloway v. State
of Louisiana, 817 F.2d 1154, 1157 (5th Cir. 1987); Hernandez v.
Estelle, 788 F.2d 1154, 1158 (5th Cir. 1986). Sloan has not
established that the defendants were deliberately indifferent in
removing his racial restrictions. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511
U.S. 825, 834 (1994). Although Sloan alleges that the defendants
removed his restrictions in retaliation for his writ-writing
activities, he has not alleged a chronology of events from which
such retaliatory motive may be inferred. See Woods v. Smith, 60
F.3d 1161, 1166 (5th Cir. 1995).
Sloan has not briefed on appeal his assertions that state
officials and medical employees tampered with his prison records
and that the district court should have recused itself or
investigated the merits of his claims. These claims are
No. 03-41685
-3-
therefore abandoned. See Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy
Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987).
Sloan has not established that the district court erred in
dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint for failure to state a
claim upon which relief can be granted. See Harris v. Hegman,
198 F.3d 153, 156 (5th Cir. 1999). Consequently, the judgment of
the district court is AFFIRMED.