IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
__________________
No. 95-40620
Conference Calendar
__________________
JESSE LEE WASHINGTON,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
ROBERT HERRING, Warden;
UNIDENTIFIED MOORE;
UNIDENTIFIED WARD,
Defendants-Appellees.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 6:95-CV-337
- - - - - - - - - -
(October 18, 1995)
Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, and REAVLEY and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Jesse Lee Washington appeals the district court's dismissal
as frivolous of his pro se and in forma pauperis (IFP) civil
rights complaint. Washington argued that he was denied access to
the courts because the prison guards failed to collect the mail
on November 25, 1994, thereby causing his objections to a
magistrate judge's report and recommendation in another lawsuit
to be rendered untimely.
*
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that this opinion should not be published.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. 95-40620
-2-
An IFP claim that has no arguable basis in law or fact may
be dismissed as frivolous. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d); Booker v.
Koonce, 2 F.3d 114, 115 (5th Cir. 1993). This court's review is
for an abuse of discretion. Booker, 2 F.3d at 115.
To prevail on a denial-of-access-to-the-courts claim, the
claimant must show that he was prejudiced by the alleged
violation. Henthorn v. Swinson, 955 F.2d 351, 354 (5th Cir.),
cert. denied, 112 S. Ct. 2974 (1992). Washington does not
challenge the finding that his objections were considered even
though they were filed late. Because he was not prejudiced by
the alleged violation, Washington's access-to-the-courts claim
fails. See Henthorn, 955 F.2d at 354.
Washington's assertion that the magistrate judge entered
into a conspiracy with TDCJ officials because he had lunch and
coffee with them is utterly without merit. See Liteky v. United
States, 114 S. Ct. 1147, 1157 (1994). Washington's contention
that he was entitled to attend an evidentiary hearing prior to
dismissal of his complaint is also without merit. See Eason v.
Thaler, 14 F.3d 8, 9 (5th Cir. 1994). This appeal is frivolous
and is, thus, DISMISSED. 5th Cir. R. 42.2; Howard v. King, 707
F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983).
We have warned Washington that frivolous appeals may result
in sanctions. See Washington v. Franks, No. 95-50526 (5th Cir.
Aug. 7, 1995). Because Washington has not heeded this warning,
we now bar Washington from filing any civil appeal in this court
without the prior written approval of a judge of the forum court,
or of this court. Washington is cautioned to review all pending
No. 95-40620
-3-
appeals to ensure that they do not raise arguments that are
frivolous.