United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FIFTH CIRCUIT March 16, 2006
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 04-11179
Summary Calendar
MICHAEL C. WHITING,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
BETTY ALVARADO; BRIAN PIERCE; JAMES HOWARD;
MIKE ROWLAND; TED MOORE; JULIE PACHECHO;
THERESA HENDRICK; FRANK POHLMEIER; RUBY WARREN;
HERMAN WESTON, JR.; KELLI WARD; JANIE COCKRELL;
DEBRA LILES,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
(2:03-CV-53)
Before BARKSDALE, STEWART, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Michael C. Whiting, Texas state prisoner # 670716, appeals,
pro se, dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint, presenting due
process and retaliation claims in connection with prison
disciplinary proceedings. Whiting paid the district court filing
fee and has paid the appellate filing fee. Whiting’s complaint was
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
1
dismissed in part as frivolous under 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(c)(1); the
retaliation claims were dismissed for failure to effect timely
service pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 4(m).
Dismissal of the due process claims was proper because Whiting
did not assert the deprivation of a constitutionally protected
liberty interest. Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 484 (1995). The
district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Whiting’s
retaliation claims against Pierce and Alvarado on the ground that
Whiting failed to timely serve them. See FED. R. CIV. P. 4(m).
Whiting seeks to appeal the denial of his motion for a
temporary restraining order. Such denial is not appealable. In re
Lieb, 915 F.2d 180, 183 (5th Cir. 1990).
Whiting’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal is
DENIED.
AFFIRMED; MOTION DENIED
2