IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
__________________
No. 95-10465
Conference Calendar
__________________
SAUREZ ANDERSON,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
LINDA D. HALES,
Defendant-Appellee.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 2:94-CV-350
- - - - - - - - - -
August 23, 1995
Before KING, JOLLY, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Saurez Anderson, a Texas state prisoner, filed a civil
rights complaint against Linda D. Hales pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 alleging that, after his watch had been stolen by another
inmate, recovered, and placed in the property room, Hales refused
to return his watch to him. The district court dismissed his
complaint as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d). Anderson
*
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that this opinion should not be published.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. 95-10465
-2-
argues that the district court abused its discretion by
dismissing his complaint as frivolous.
"The Due Process Clause is not implicated by a state
official's negligent act causing unintended loss of property,"
and even the intentional deprivation of an inmate's property does
not raise a constitutional claim if an adequate post-deprivation
remedy exists. Simmons v. Poppell, 837 F.2d 1243, 1244 (5th Cir.
1988) (citing Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327 (1986), and
Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517 (1984)). Anderson has a right of
action under Texas law for any alleged negligent or intentional
deprivation of property. See Thompson v. Steele, 709 F.2d 381,
383 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 897 (1983); Myers v.
Adams, 728 S.W.2d 771, 772 (Tex. 1987).
Further, contrary to his argument on appeal, Anderson has
not demonstrated that he has suffered "a violation of a
substantive right protected by the Constitution against
infringement by state governments." See Augustine v. Doe, 740
F.2d 322, 327 (5th Cir. 1984). Anderson's allegation that Hales,
the property officer at the prison, wrongfully confiscated his
personal property, does not state a Fourth Amendment violation.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing
Anderson's complaint as frivolous. Anderson is warned that the
filing of further frivolous suits in this court could result in
the imposition of sanctions. See Smith v. McCleod, 946 F.2d 417,
418 (5th Cir. 1991).
AFFIRMED.