United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT February 15, 2005
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 04-60569
Summary Calendar
CHARLIE LEE TAYLOR,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
JIMMIE MILTON, Lieutenant; FAYE NOEL, Lieutenant;
MICHAEL GERMAN, Lieutenant; MICHAEL DAVES, K-9 Officer,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Mississippi
USDC No. 4:04-CV-133-PA
--------------------
Before REAVLEY, JOLLY, and HIGGINBOTHAM, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Charlie Lee Taylor (Taylor), Mississippi prisoner # R6798,
appeals the district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983
civil rights complaint against Lieutenant Jimmie Milton,
Lieutenant Faye Noel, Lieutenant Michael German, and K-9 Officer
Michael Daves for failure to state a claim upon which relief
could be granted and failure to exhaust administrative remedies.
Taylor contends that the district court erred in dismissing
his civil rights complaint for failure to state a claim upon
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 04-60569
-2-
which relief could be granted. Aside from conclusional
allegations that his legal work was allowable property and that
the seizure was unconstitutional and in violation of the
Mississippi Department of Corrections’ (MDOC) policy, Taylor does
not challenge the district court’s determination that the MDOC
policy had been approved by the court, that the defendants were
justified in confiscating Taylor’s legal work, and that Taylor
had not submitted a proper request to have his legal work
returned. Therefore, Taylor has abandoned this issue. See
Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744,
748 (5th Cir. 1987). Further, as Taylor did not allege a
physical injury, 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(e) precludes his claim for
compensatory damages for any mental or emotional injury suffered
as a result of the confiscation of his legal work at gunpoint.
Moreover, as Taylor did not allege any facts that would render
the likelihood of a future injury any more than a remote and
speculative possibility, he failed to state a valid Eighth
Amendment claim for injunctive relief. See Society of
Separationists, Inc. v. Herman, 959 F.2d 1283, 1285 (5th Cir.
1992). Therefore, the district court did not err in dismissing
Taylor’s complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief
could be granted, and this court need not determine whether a
dismissal was also justified for failure to exhaust
administrative remedies pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1997e.
No. 04-60569
-3-
For the first time on appeal, Taylor contends that District
Judge W. Allen Pepper, Jr., was biased against him and should
have disqualified himself from the case. “Requests for recusal
raised for the first time on appeal are generally rejected as
untimely.” Andrade v. Chojnacki, 338 F.3d 448, 454 (5th Cir.
2003). Nevertheless, even if this court were to review Taylor’s
contention, he cannot show plain error. See Liteky v. United
States, 510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994); United States v. Gray, 105 F.3d
956, 968 (5th Cir. 1997).
Finally, this court will not consider Taylor’s newly raised
allegations regarding events that occurred subsequent to the
district court’s dismissal of his case. See Theriot v. Parish of
Jefferson, 185 F.3d 477, 491 n.26 (5th Cir. 1999); Leverette v.
Louisville Ladder Co., 183 F.3d 339, 342 (5th Cir. 1999).
Because Taylor’s appeal is without arguable merit, it is
dismissed as frivolous. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2; Howard v. King,
707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983). Taylor is warned that the
filing of frivolous pleadings in this court or in the district
court or the prosecution of frivolous actions or appeals will
subject him to sanctions beyond those prescribed in 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(g), including monetary penalties and restrictions on his
ability to file actions and appeals.
APPEAL DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.