UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-40456
Summary Calendar
MICHAEL BRAD LASSITER,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
BILL WELK, In House Investigator
for Smith County Jail; CAROL “CURLY”
BEDDINGFIELD, Lt. in Charge of Smith
County Jail Medium and Low Risk
Facilities; J.B. SMITH, Sheriff of
Smith County; MARVIN WINTERS, Captain
over Smith County Jail Operations,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
For the Eastern District of Texas
(6:94-CV-835)
December 4, 1995
Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, GARWOOD and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Michael Brad Lassiter appeals the dismissal of his in forma pauperis civil rights
complaint as frivolous. We are to construe liberally the legal arguments presented by a pro
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to that Rule, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be published.
se appellant in his brief.1
Stripped to essentials, Lassiter contends in his brief that he was deprived of
constitutional rights by an alleged seizure of legal and nonlegal material, a denial of access
to the law library, a denial of a hardcover Bible, secondary tobacco smoke, an inadequate
medical observation facility, and the placement of color television sets in a portion of the jail.
We find no error in the district court’s disposition of these issues.2
Lassiter also challenges the manner in which the district court handled his case.
Again, we find no error.3 Additionally, Lassiter maintains that he was entitled to a default
judgment. The district court did not err in allowing the defendant to answer the amended
complaint.4
The instant appeal is frivolous. We dismiss it as such.5
We caution Lassiter that the filing of additional frivolous appeals will invite the
imposition of sanctions. He is further cautioned to review any pending appeals to ensure that
they do not merely present issues previously considered and rejected by this court.
DISMISSED.
Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972); Grant v. Cuellar, 59 F.3d 523 (5th Cir. 1995);
Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222 (5th Cir. 1993); Fed.R.App.P. 28(a).
28 U.S.C. § 1915(d); Eason v. Thaler, 14 F.3d 8 (5th Cir. 1994).
Spears v. McCotter, 766 F.2d 179 (5th Cir. 1985).
Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a); Louisiana v. Litton Mortgage Co., 50 F.3d 1298 (5th Cir. 1995);
Joplin v. Bias, 631 F.2d 1235 (5th Cir. 1980).
5th Cir. Loc.R. 42.2.
2