After oral argument and careful consideration, we conclude that the judgment of the district court is due to be affirmed. Although the district court opinion dated July 25, 2005, is probably correct with respect to all of the several grounds relied upon, we need hold only that plaintiff has *899 clearly failed to show that any deprivation by defendants was intentional. There is ample evidence that the Department of Corrections was reasonable in using the name Evans under which plaintiff was sentenced. Also, plaintiff has adduced evidence of only two instances of failure to receive mail, and defendant expressly advised plaintiff of an easy means for plaintiff to avoid any such mistake, which advice plaintiff ignored.

AFFIRMED.