Davis v. Purvis ( 1998 )

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 98-40138
Summary Calendar
DARRYL G. DAVIS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
EDWARD L. PURVIS ET AL.,
Defendants-Appellees.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 6:96-CV-1106
- - - - - - - - - -
October 8, 1998
Before DAVIS, DUHE’, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Darryl G. Davis, Texas prisoner #691115, appeals from the
dismissal of his civil rights action. Davis moves for
appointment of counsel; his appointment-of-counsel motion is
DENIED.
Davis asserts that he exhausted prison administrative
remedies; that the magistrate judge erroneously analyzed his
claims arising from the May 15, 1996, use of force against him;
that prison medical personnel were deliberately indifferent to
his medical needs; that the penalties he received following the
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 98-40138
-2-
disciplinary hearing arising from the May 15 incident constituted
punishment; that evidence at a disciplinary hearing arising from
a November 3, 1996, incident involving the seizure of handcuffs
from a prison guard was not credible; that the magistrate judge
and the district court committed numerous procedural errors; and
that the magistrate judge erred by denying his request for
appointment of counsel to represent him. Davis’s contentions are
unavailing.
We have reviewed the record and Davis’s brief and we have
found no meritorious issues regarding Davis’s exhaustion,
excessive-force, medical-care, or disciplinary-hearing
contentions. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for essentially
the reasons relied upon by the district court. Davis v. Purvis,
No. 6:96-CV-1106 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 13, 1998). Davis has failed to
show any errors regarding the procedures followed by the district
court in conjunction with the hearing pursuant to Spears v.
McCotter, 766 F.2d 179 (5th Cir. 1985), and he has failed to
brief various contentions regarding Spears procedures, a
conspiracy between the magistrate judge and prison officials, and
his contention that the district court should have appointed
counsel to represent him. We do not consider those contentions.
Andrews v. Collins, 21 F.3d 612, 632 (5th Cir. 1994).
Davis’s appeal is without arguable merit and is frivolous.
Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983). Davis’s
appeal therefore is dismissed as frivolous.
APPEAL DISMISSED. 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.