Filed: Apr. 25, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT _ No. 96-20116 Conference Calendar _ LONNIE JAMES SANDERS, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus J. GROOM ET AL., Defendants-Appellees. - - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. CA-H-95-3618 - - - - - - - - - - April 16, 1996 Before DUHÉ, DeMOSS, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Lonnie James Sanders appeals the dismissal as frivolous of his civil rights complaint concernin
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT _ No. 96-20116 Conference Calendar _ LONNIE JAMES SANDERS, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus J. GROOM ET AL., Defendants-Appellees. - - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. CA-H-95-3618 - - - - - - - - - - April 16, 1996 Before DUHÉ, DeMOSS, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Lonnie James Sanders appeals the dismissal as frivolous of his civil rights complaint concerning..
More
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
__________________
No. 96-20116
Conference Calendar
__________________
LONNIE JAMES SANDERS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
J. GROOM ET AL.,
Defendants-Appellees.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. CA-H-95-3618
- - - - - - - - - -
April 16, 1996
Before DUHÉ, DeMOSS, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Lonnie James Sanders appeals the dismissal as frivolous of
his civil rights complaint concerning the denial of his three
requests for certain vocational training at the prison where he
is incarcerated. Sanders insists that he did not raise any claim
concerning retaliation. Therefore, any such claim is deemed
abandoned on appeal. See Eason v. Thaler,
14 F.3d 8, 9 n.1 (5th
Cir. 1994).
Sanders argues that the defendants, acting under color of
state law, violated his right to equal educational opportunities
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
No. 96-20116
-2-
as specified under certain statutes and his right to equal
protection under the Fourteenth Amendment. We have carefully
reviewed the record and Sanders' arguments. We conclude that
Sanders' allegations do not show a violation of a federal right,
either statutory or constitutional. Therefore, his complaint
lacks an arguable basis in law, and the district court did not
abuse its discretion in dismissing the complaint as frivolous.
See Denton v. Hernandez,
504 U.S. 25, 33 (1992).
AFFIRMED.