United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FIFTH CIRCUIT January 9, 2007
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 05-20693
Summary Calendar
CLARENCE W. BILBREW,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
CORRECTIONAL OFFICER PATRICIA CORONA; ET AL.,
Defendants,
CORRECTIONAL OFFICER PATRICIA CORONA;
M. EDISON; SENIOR WARDEN BRENDA CHANEY;
JOHN #1 DOE; JANE DOE,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
(4:04-CV-2075)
Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
This pro se appeal concerns the dismissal of the underlying 42
U.S.C. § 1983 action by Clarence W. Bilbrew, Texas prisoner #
882188, seeking redress for, inter alia, the defendants’ alleged
retaliatory transfer of Bilbrew from one prison unit to another.
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
Summary judgment was awarded the defendants. (Bilbrew’s motion for
the appointment of counsel on appeal and all other outstanding
motions are DENIED.)
Bilbrew claims the defendants retaliated against him for filing
grievances and actions concerning alleged mistreatment by prison
staff, including the claimed improper confiscation of his fan, clock
radio, and electric hot pot. The summary-judgment evidence provided
by the defendants refuted Bilbrew’s retaliation contention, and
Bilbrew did not provide evidence to create a genuine issue of
material fact. The dismissal of this action was proper. See Jones
v. Greninger, 188 F.3d 322, 324-25 (5th Cir. 1999); Resident Council
v. United States Dep't of Hous. and Urban Dev., 980 F.2d 1043, 1050
(5th Cir.), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 820 (1993).
Bilbrew also asserts that, due to his prison unit transfer, he
was denied his constitutional right of access to the court during
the district court proceedings, because, inter alia, his transfer
interfered with his correspondence with the court. He has not shown
any prejudice arising from the defendants’ alleged actions. See
Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 350-51, 355 (1996).
AFFIRMED; ALL OUTSTANDING MOTIONS DENIED
2