IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-10313
Summary Calendar
RANDY LEE HARPER,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
THOMAS J. CALLAHAN, ET AL.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
(7:93-CV-154(7:93-CV-37-X))
November 20, 1995
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DUHÉ, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Randy Lee Harper appeals from the final judgment of the
United States District Court dismissing his claims that his
constitutional rights were violated by the defendants while he
was an inmate at the Wichita County Detention Center. We have
jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
I.
*
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that this opinion should not be published.
On September 24, 1992, Harper was arrested by officers of
the Wichita Falls Police Department and charged with possession
of a controlled substance. From September 24, 1992 until July 6,
1993, Harper was incarcerated at the Wichita County Detention
Center.
On March 25, 1993, Harper sued Sheriff Callahan and the
Captain of Jail Administration, Deanna Maness, pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that they violated his Eighth Amendment
rights by failing to provide him with adequate opportunity to
exercise, an adequate diet, adequate medical care, and sufficient
protection from tuberculosis infected inmates. Harper, who
proceeded pro se and in forma pauperis, requested the appointment
of counsel, which the district court denied.
After a bench trial, the district court dismissed all of
Harper's claims as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d). The
court concluded that Harper failed to demonstrate that the
defendants, acting in their official capacity, had a policy or
custom of violating inmate's constitutional rights. In addition,
the court held that Harper presented insufficient evidence to
prove defendants, acting in their individual capacity, had
violated his constitutional rights. This timely appeal followed.
II.
Harper claims that the district court erred in dismissing
his § 1983 claim that the defendants violated the Eighth
Amendment by failing to sufficiently protect him from
tuberculosis infected inmates. Specifically, Harper charges that
2
he "vaguely presented" evidence that he was exposed to inmates
infected with tuberculosis.
We review the district court's dismissal of Harper's claims
as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) for abuse of
discretion. Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33 (1992). A
district court may dismiss a complaint as frivolous if it lacks
an arguable basis in law or fact. Id. at 32-33; Krueger v.
Reimer, 66 F.3d 75, 76 (5th Cir. 1995).
At trial, Sheriff Callahan testified that, to his knowledge,
only six cases of tuberculosis had been reported in the past ten
years at the jail. In response, Harper testified that of the
thirty inmates with whom he had been transferred to the jail, six
had been exposed to the disease. Harper acknowledged that he had
no proof that those six inmates carried the tuberculosis disease.
Significantly, Harper did not testify that he had contracted
tuberculosis, nor did Harper offer medical evidence that he had
even been exposed to tuberculosis while he was incarcerated at
the jail. Given this testimony, the district court concluded
that "there was no medical evidence adduced that Harper or anyone
house at any time with him had or has tuberculosis." We agree
with the district court's assessment of Harper's claim as
frivolous.
Similarly, Harper's contentions that jail overcrowding
resulted in his being denied adequate exercise opportunities and
adequate diet are without merit. Harper provided no evidence
3
that the conditions at the detention facility violated
Constitutional requirements.
Finally, Harper asserts that his appeal should be held to
less stringent standards because he is proceeding pro se. We
disagree. Although we liberally construe the briefs of pro se
appellants, we also require that the appellant inform the court
of the reasons that he is entitled to relief "with citation to
the authorities, statutes and parts of the record relied on."
Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 225 (5th Cir. 1993) (quoting Fed.
R. App. P. 28(a)(4)). Harper has failed to do that. Any
objection to the district court's judgment not raised in Harper's
brief is waived.
AFFIRMED.
4