IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
__________________
No. 95-40033
Conference Calendar
__________________
CHARLES E. GRAY,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
A. SMITH, L. Woods, UNKNOWN
NAMES PRISON OFFICIALS
Defendants-Appellees.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. CA-C-94-172
- - - - - - - - - -
June 29, 1995
Before JONES, WIENER, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d), Charles E. Gray was not entitled
to conduct discovery prior to dismissal of his complaint. See 28
U.S.C. § 1915(d). Gray failed to establish that any defendant
was deliberately indifferent to Gray's serious medical need or
safety. See Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976); Farmer
v. Brennan, 114 S. Ct. 1970, 1979 (1994). Therefore, the
district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing the
complaint.
*
Local Rule 47.5 provides: "The publication of opinions
that have no precedential value and merely decide particular
cases on the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes
needless expense on the public and burdens on the legal
profession." Pursuant to that Rule, the court has determined
that this opinion should not be published.
No. 9
-2-
AFFIRMED.