Watson v. Scott ( 1996 )

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
__________________
No. 95-11192
(Summary Calendar)
__________________
BOBBY WATSON,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
WAYNE SCOTT; WILLIAM
WHITE; ROBERT CHANCE;
WILLIAM GONZALES; SHIRLEY
HAINES,
Defendants-Appellees.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
(USDC No. 2:95-CV-315)
- - - - - - - - - -
May 16, 1996
Before GARWOOD, WIENER and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Bobby Watson argues that the district court abused its
discretion in dismissing his complaint as frivolous. Watson argues
that his complaint was dismissed without affording him the
opportunity to amend his complaint.
We have reviewed the record, the opinion of the district
court, and the brief, and find that the dismissal of the complaint
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
as frivolous should be affirmed substantially for the reasons
stated by the district court. See Watson v. Scott, No. 2:95-CV-315
(N.D. Tex. Dec. 7, 1995). Because Watson has not alleged an
arguable constitutional claim or asserted the existence of any
further facts which would have sustained an arguable claim, the
district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the
complaint without affording Watson the opportunity to amend. See
Graves v. Hampton, 1 F.3d 315, 319-20 (5th Cir. 1994).
Watson argues for the first time on appeal that the defendants
executed a clipper-shave policy that discriminated against black
inmates suffering from pseudofolliculitis barbae. The court
declines to exercise its discretion to review Watson's claim that
the implementation of a new clipper-shave pass policy discriminated
against black inmates because the issue involves fact questions
which were not addressed in the district court. See United States
v. Vital, 68 F.3d 114, 118 (1995); Highlands Ins. Co. v. National
Union Fire Ins. Co., 27 F.3d 1027, 1031-32 (5th Cir. 1994), cert.
denied, 115 S. Ct. 903 (1995)).
AFFIRMED.
2