UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
__________________
No. 95-40251
Summary Calendar
__________________
JOSEPH H. WILLIAMS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
JOHN HESTER,
Defendant-Appellee.
______________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Texas
(6:94 CV 566)
______________________________________________
(July 31, 1995)
Before JONES, BARKSDALE and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
The Appellant Joseph H. Williams ("Williams"), proceeding pro
se, appeals the district court's dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983
complaint as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d). We affirm the
dismissal of the district court for the following reasons:
*
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should not be published.
1. In the instant case, Williams's claim that he was denied
due process because the prison regulation required a captain or
major (rather than a lieutenant such as the Appellee John Hester
("Hester")) to classify a disciplinary infraction is wholly without
merit. The classification called for by the prison regulation
determines whether the disciplinary hearing will be classified as
major or minor. Williams was not harmed inasmuch as the instant
disciplinary case was classified as minor rather than major.
2. The trial court correctly determined that there was no
showing that Hester was involved in the investigation or
prosecution of Williams's infraction and also that Williams failed
to show that Hester's action denied Williams a fair and impartial
hearing. Thus, Williams's claims based on Wolff v. McDonnell, 418
U.S. 539 (1974), are unavailing.
3. The equal protection argument advanced by Williams is
frivolous; Williams has made no showing that Hester intentionally
discriminated against him by grading the infraction or that he
suffered as a result of the unauthorized grading. See Lavernia v.
Lynaugh, 845 F.2d 493, 496 (5th Cir. 1988).
Lacking an arguable basis in law, the claims asserted by
Williams were properly dismissed by the district court; certainly
no abuse of discretion was occasioned by the dismissal.
AFFIRMED
2