Nelson v. Puckett ( 1998 )

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-60304
Conference Calendar
OWEN NELSON,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
STEVE W. PUCKETT; J. MELTON; CO-II MEGEE;
SGT. PORTER; CO-II CUMMINGS; CO-II LOOTS,
Defendants-Appellees.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Mississippi
USDC No. 4:96-CV-318 D-B
- - - - - - - - - -
April 8, 1998
Before JOLLY, JONES, and DUHÉ, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Owen Nelson, Mississippi prisoner #44870, appeals from the
dismissal of his prisoner civil-rights action as frivolous.
Nelson contends that the defendants deprived him of his right of
access to the courts and deprived him of due process when they
seized the legal material he was using for his own and for other
prisoners’ cases. Nelson also contends that he should have been
allowed to amend his complaint. Nelson failed to file timely
objections to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendations;
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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 5TH CIR.
R. 47.5.4.
No. 97-60304
-2-
consequently, our review is for plain error. Douglass v. United
Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1428-29 (5th Cir. 1996)(en
banc)(footnotes omitted).
Regarding Nelson’s contention that he was deprived of his
right of access to the courts based on the seizure of other
prisoners’ legal material, we have reviewed the record and
Nelson’s brief and we find Nelson’s contention frivolous for
essentially the reasons relied upon by the district court.
Nelson v. Puckett, No. 4:96-CV-318 D-B (N.D. Miss. Mar. 18,
1997). Nelson has failed to demonstrate prejudice regarding his
contention that he was deprived of his right of access to the
courts based on the seizure of his own legal material. Mann v.
Smith, 796 F.2d 79, 84 (5th Cir. 1986). Regarding Nelson’s
contention that he was deprived of due process, Nelson conceded
that most of the seized material was returned to him. Moreover,
Mississippi provides adequate post-deprivation remedies. Nickens
v. Melton, 38 F.3d 183, 184-86 (5th Cir. 1994). Finally, Nelson
has failed to brief his contention that he should have been
allowed to amend his complaint. Brinkmann v. Dallas County
Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987).
Nelson’s appeal is without arguable merit and therefore is
frivolous. Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983).
APPEAL DISMISSED. 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.