IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-50042 Summary Calendar

SAMUEL DENNIS STINSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus WAYNE SCOTT; MELINDA HOYLE BOZARTH, Defendants-Appellees.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. A-97-CV-383-JN -------------------- January 28, 2000 Before DAVIS, EMILIO M. GARZA, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:* Samuel Dennis Stinson, Texas state prisoner #516177, appeals from the district court’s dismissal of his civil rights suit.

Stinson’s second motion to supplement the record on appeal, filed on December 7, 1999, is GRANTED.

Stinson argues that he was required to serve four years on a previous two-year sentence and that the previous conviction had been improperly used to enhance his present sentence and was still being used to deny him parole. The writ of habeas corpus is the sole federal remedy for Stinson to challenge the fact or

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

No. 99-50042 -2- duration of his confinement. See Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973). Stinson’s habeas claims are therefore not cognizable in this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 proceeding. Stinson’s claims that he was retaliated against by prison officials and denied access to the courts are without merit. See Woods v. Edwards, 51 F.3d 577, 580-81 (5th Cir. 1995); Thompson v. Steele, 709 F.2d 381, 382 (5th Cir. 1983). Stinson’s remaining claims are deemed abandoned on appeal because they are not adequately briefed. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 225 (5th Cir. 1993).

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

Stinson’s first motion to supplement the record on appeal and his motion to consolidate the present appeal with his appeal in No. 99-50364 are DENIED.