IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
__________________
No. 95-40688
Conference Calendar
__________________
DOUGLAS JAMES DURHAM,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
JAMES A. COLLINS, Director;
JANIE M. COCKRELL, Warden; CARL D. WHITE,
Assistant Warden Beto I Unit; UNIDENTIFIED NOONAN,
Classification at Beto I Unit; R. HANIE, Health
Administrator at Beto I Unit; RITA R. PARSON, Health
Administrator at Beto I Unit; KEN KUYKENDALL, Dr. at
Beto I Unit; RICHARD K. THOMPSON, Captain at Beto I Unit,
Defendants-Appellees.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 6:94-CV-870
- - - - - - - - - -
December 19, 1995
Before DAVIS, STEWART, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Douglas J. Durham, a prisoner in the Beto I unit of the
Texas Department of Criminal Justice - Institutional Division
(TDCJ-ID), alleged that prison officials were deliberately
indifferent to his serious medical needs by not providing shower
*
Local Rule 47.5.1 provides: "The publication of
opinions that 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Rule, the court has determined that this opinion should not be
published.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. 95-40688
-2-
facilities for handicapped inmates in all areas of the prison.
This complaint does not rise to the level of a constitutional
violation. Farmer v. Brennan, 114 S. Ct. 1970, 1977-78 (1994);
Varnado v. Lynaugh, 920 F.2d 320, 321 (5th Cir. 1991). The
district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the
action as frivolous. Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 31-33
(1992).
As Durham has presented no legal points arguable on their
merits, his appeal is frivolous. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d
215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983). We caution Durham that any additional
frivolous appeals filed by him or on his behalf will invite the
imposition of sanctions. To avoid sanctions, Durham is further
cautioned to review any pending appeals to ensure that they do
not raise arguments that are frivolous. Because this appeal is
frivolous, it is DISMISSED. See 5th Cir. Rule 42.2.