Surasky v. Kelly ( 2003 )

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS April 22, 2003
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 02-41159
Conference Calendar
DAVID GREGORY SURASKY,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
FOREST B. KELLY, Inmate Systems Manager; ERNEST V. CHANDLER,
Warden; RONALD THOMPSON, The South Central Regional Director of
the Bureau of Prisons,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 1:02-CV-347
--------------------
Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
David Gregory Surasky, federal prisoner # 52646-080, appeals
the district court’s dismissal of his complaint for damages,
brought pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the
Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), on the grounds
that it was frivolous and for failure to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted. Surasky argues that: (1) the district
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 02-41159
-2-
court erred in dismissing his suit without giving him notice and
an opportunity to amend his complaint and (2) he is entitled to
judgment in his favor because the defendants failed to file a
response denying the allegations made in his complaint.
Surasky’s complaint was dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915A. The statute contains no requirement for service on the
defendants, nor for giving notice to the plaintiff of impending
dismissal. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A; see also Carr v. Dvorin, 171
F.3d 115, 116 (2d Cir. 1999); Martin v. Scott, 156 F.3d 578, 580
n.2 (5th Cir. 1998). Surasky’s claim that he is entitled to
judgment because the defendants failed to respond to his
complaint is without merit given that: (1) the defendants were
never served with process and (2) the district court properly
concluded that the complaint was time-barred. Accordingly, the
judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.