IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT __________________ No. 95-40033 Conference Calendar __________________ CHARLES E. GRAY, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus A. SMITH, L. Woods, UNKNOWN NAMES PRISON OFFICIALS Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. CA-C-94-172 - - - - - - - - - - June 29, 1995 Before JONES, WIENER, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:* Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d), Charles E. Gray was not entitled to conduct discovery prior to dismissal of his complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d). Gray failed to establish that any defendant was deliberately indifferent to Gray's serious medical need or safety. See Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976); Farmer v. Brennan, 114 S. Ct. 1970, 1979 (1994). Therefore, the district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing the complaint.

* Local Rule 47.5 provides: "The publication of opinions that have no precedential value and merely decide particular cases on the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes needless expense on the public and burdens on the legal profession." Pursuant to that Rule, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published.

No. 9 -2-

AFFIRMED.