Opinion filed December 16, 2010

                                                                       In The

  Eleventh Court of Appeals

                                                                   __________

                                                         No. 11-10-00087-CV

                                                    __________

                                  MICHEAL RALSTON, Appellant

                                                             V.

                                DENISE UPFOLD ET AL, Appellees

                                   On Appeal from the 259th District Court

                                                             Jones County, Texas

                                                     Trial Court Cause No. 021970

                                            M E M O R A N D U M   O P I N I O N

Micheal Ralston sued Denise M. Upfold, Roxann D. Martinez, and Janay B. Williams for unlawfully appropriating seventy-six photographs, eight role playing books, and one wireless notebook.  Ralston alleged that the taking occurred while he was confined in the French M. Robertson Unit and while the defendants were employed as correctional officers.  Ralston sought $288.75 in actual damages as well as $1,000 in punitive damages from each defendant.  The trial court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss pursuant to Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. ch. 14 (Vernon 2002).  We affirm.

            On appeal, Ralston contends that the trial court abused its discretion by dismissing without conducting a hearing first and by failing to enter specific findings on his allegations concerning violations of the Texas Theft Liability Act, Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. ch. 134 (Vernon 2005).  Ralston also argues that he has a cognizable claim under the Texas Liability Act.

            Pursuant to Section 14.008(a), the trial court may but is not required to conduct a hearing.  In its order, the trial court stated that appellant had failed to comply with the requirements of Chapter 14.  The record supports the trial court’s findings.  Moreover, the record does not support Ralston’s arguments that the trial court abused its discretion or that he alleged a cause of action under Section 134.001.  All of Ralston’s contentions have been considered, and each is overruled.

            The order of the trial court is affirmed.

                                                                                                PER CURIAM

December 16, 2010

Panel consists of:  Wright, C.J.,

McCall, J., and Strange, J.