IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
__________________
No. 95-50749
No. 95-50798
Summary Calendar
__________________
DAVID GLENN BRAY,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
DENNIS WALKER, Sheriff;
EARLENE MOORE, Lt.; MARY
GILLESPIE,
Defendants-Appellees,
and
DAVID GLENN BRAY,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
DENNIS WALKER, Sheriff;
EARLENE MOORE, Lt.,
Defendants-Appellees.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC Nos. W-94-CV-347 and W-94-CV-263
- - - - - - - - - -
April 12, 1996
Before GARWOOD, WIENER and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
*
Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined
that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent
except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule
47.5.4.
Nos. 95-50749 & 95-50798
-2-
David Glenn Bray appeals from the district court's grant of
summary judgments for the defendants in two civil rights suits.
Bray argues that the district court erred by granting summary
judgment on his claims that he was denied adequate medical
treatment and denied access to a law library, that the district
court erred by granting summary judgment without allowing him to
complete discovery, and that the district court abused its
discretion by failing to conduct an evidentiary hearing and to
appoint counsel for Bray sua sponte. We have reviewed the record
and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the court's
grant of summary judgment on Bray's claim that he was denied
adequate medical care for essentially the reasons stated by the
district court.
The district court did not err by granting summary judgment
before allowing Bray to conduct discovery because Bray never
requested additional time for discovery nor has he made any
specific argument on appeal to show that additional discovery
would have allowed him to rebut the defendants' summary-judgment
evidence. See International Shortstop, Inc. v. Rally's, Inc.,
939 F.2d 1257, 1266-67 (5th Cir. 1991), cert. denied, 502 U.S.
1059 (1992). Neither did the district court abuse its discretion
by failing to appoint counsel and conduct an evidentiary hearing
sua sponte. Bray's claim that his parole was revoked because he
was denied access to a law library is not cognizable under 42
U.S.C. § 1983. See Heck v. Humphrey, 114 S. Ct. 2364, 2372
(1994). Finally, Bray's claims that he was forced to sleep on
the floor because the jail was overcrowded; that he was harassed
Nos. 95-50749 & 95-50798
-3-
and threatened; and that he was served half-cooked, cold food are
deemed abandoned on appeal because they were not briefed. See
Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 225 (5th Cir. 1993).
AFFIRMED.