IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________________

No. 00-30137 Summary Calendar _____________________

FREDDIE TAYLOR,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

DEWAYNE CROWELL; MAXIE, Sergeant; VIVIAN, Sergeant; PERKINS, Sergeant; G. HILLMAN, Assistant Warden,

Defendants-Appellees. _________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana USDC No. 99-CV-1751 _________________________________________________________________ August 17, 2000

Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Freddie Taylor, Louisiana state prisoner # 100971, appeals the

district court’s dismissal of his civil rights complaint as

frivolous and for failure to state a claim under

(e)(2)(B)(i) and (ii). A dismissal of a complaint as

frivolous under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) is reviewed for an abuse of

discretion. See Ruiz v. United States,

(5th Cir.

1998). A dismissal for failure to state a claim under

* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) is reviewed under the same de novo standard as

is employed in reviewing dismissals under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).

Black v. Warren,

(5th Cir. 1998).

The district court reasoned that Taylor’s due process claims

were barred under the Parratt/Hudson1 doctrine. Because Taylor

does not argue his due process claims on appeal and does not

address the dismissal of the claims as barred by Parratt/Hudson, he

has abandoned his due process claims for purposes of this appeal.

See Yohey v. Collins,

(5th Cir. 1993). He

also has abandoned any claim of the denial of his right to freedom

of speech by failing to raise the claim on appeal.

Taylor argues that the defendants’ interference with his legal

mail denied him access to the courts. He contends that the

defendants hindered his ability to litigate his claim of cruel and

unusual punishment in Cause No. 99-1639, which is currently pending

in the Western District of Louisiana. Taylor does not suggest that

his position as a litigant actually was prejudiced by the purported

interference with his legal mail. See Lewis v. Casey,

(1996). Taylor has not demonstrated error in the

district court’s dismissal of his claim of denial of access to the

courts.

1 Parratt v. Taylor,

(1981), overruled in part not relevant here, Daniels v. Williams,

(1986); Hudson v. Palmer,

(1984).

2 For the first time on appeal, Taylor argues that the

defendants violated the Fourth Amendment by interfering with his

legal mail, that in an effort to hinder his ability to litigate a

claim of cruel and unusual punishment. Taylor has not demonstrated

plain error. See Robertson v. Plano City of Texas,

(5th Cir. 1995).

A F F I R M E D.

3