IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
__________________
No. 95-40059
Conference Calendar
__________________
PETE VARDAS, JR.,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
TEXAS DEPARTMENT CRIMINAL
JUSTICE, INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION,
Pardons and Parole Division,
Defendants-Appellees.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 6:94-CV-363
- - - - - - - - - -
June 30, 1995
Before JONES, WIENER, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Pete Vardas, Jr., filed a motion to dismiss without
prejudice his civil rights complaint, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, under
Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1), and the district court granted the
motion. On appeal Vardas argues the merits of his underlying
Eighth Amendment claim, but fails to challenge the basis of the
dismissal. Issues not raised or briefed are considered
abandoned. Evans v. City of Marlin, Tex., 986 F.2d 104, 106 n.1
(5th Cir. 1993).
*
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that this opinion should not be published.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. 95-40059
-2-
To the extent that he argues for the first time on appeal
that the district court and Texas Department of Criminal Justice
officials conspired to violate his civil rights, this court will
not address issues not considered by the district court.
"[I]ssues raised for the first time on appeal are not reviewable
by this court unless they involve purely legal questions and
failure to consider them would result in manifest injustice."
Varnado v. Lynaugh, 920 F.2d 320, 321 (5th Cir. 1991).
The appeal is without arguable merit and thus frivolous.
Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983). Because
the appeal is frivolous, it is DISMISSED. 5th Cir. R. 42.2. All
motions are DENIED.