IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
__________________
No. 95-10280
Conference Calendar
__________________
FRANK RAMIREZ GUEVARA,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
WILLIAM KEITH DAVIS,
Defendant-Appellee.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 6:95-CV-013
- - - - - - - - - -
August 22, 1995
Before KING, JOLLY, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Frank Ramirez Guevara filed an in forma pauperis (IFP) civil
rights complaint, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, against William Keith Davis
alleging that Davis interfered with his access to the courts when
Davis represented county defendants in an unrelated civil rights
action. The district court dismissed the complaint as frivolous,
28 U.S.C. § 1915(d), because Davis was not a state actor. On
appeal Guevara argues the merits of his underlying claim but does
not challenge the basis of the district court's judgment. Issues
*
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that this opinion should not be published.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. 95-10280
-2-
not raised or briefed are considered abandoned. Evans v. City of
Marlin, Tex., 986 F.2d 104, 106 n.1 (5th Cir. 1993).
A district court is not required to conduct a Spears hearing
before dismissing an IFP complaint as frivolous. Green v.
McKaskle, 788 F.2d 1116, 1120 (5th Cir. 1986). Guevara has not
challenged the district court's determination that Davis was not
a state actor, see Resident Council of Allen Parkway Village v.
U.S. Dep't of Housing and Urban Dev., 980 F.2d 1043, 1050 (5th
Cir.), cert. denied, 114 S. Ct. 75 (1993), and, therefore he
cannot show that he was prejudiced by the failure to conduct a
Spears hearing.
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.