IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
__________________
No. 95-20268
Conference Calendar
__________________
CASEY DEAN CORTHRON,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
MICKEY LILES, J. MATTHEWS, Sergeant,
and JAMES A. COLLINS, Director,
Texas Department of Criminal Justice,
Institutional Division,
Defendants-Appellees.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. CA-H-94-01194
- - - - - - - - - -
(October 17, 1995)
Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, and REAVLEY and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Casey Dean Corthron appeals the dismissal of his civil
rights suit pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d). A complaint filed
in forma pauperis may be dismissed as frivolous if it lacks an
arguable basis in fact or law. A § 1915(d) dismissal is reviewed
*
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that this opinion should not be published.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. 95-20268
-2-
for abuse of discretion. Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33-34
(1992)
Corthron's mail-tampering claims are not properly before
this court because he failed to file a timely amended notice of
appeal following the denial of his Rule 59(e) motion. Fed. R.
App. P. 4(a)(4). Corthron's allegations regarding retaliatory
conduct and the dismissal of his civil suit were not raised in
the district court and this court need not consider them.
Varnado v. Lynaugh, 920 F.2d 320, 321 (5th Cir. 1991).
Although prisoners have a constitutionally protected right
of access to the courts and prison officials are required to
supply inmates with adequate law libraries to comply with that
right, a claimant must show that his legal position was
prejudiced by an alleged violation to prevail on a denial-of-
access-to-the-courts claim. Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 821,
828 (1977); Henthorn v. Swinson, 955 F.2d 351, 354 (5th Cir.),
cert. denied, 504 U.S. 988 (1992). Corthron admits that he was
granted extensions until January 1995 to file his brief and that
his state appeal is still pending. Corthron has not shown the
requisite prejudice. See Henthorn, 955 F.2d at 354. Further,
Corthron has not shown that a hearing would provide sufficient
additional factual development. See Eason v. Thaler, 14 F.3d 8,
10 (5th Cir. 1994). The district court did not abuse its
discretion when it dismissed his complaint pursuant to § 1915(d).
AFFIRMED.