Walker v. Dickens
Walker v. Dickens
Opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-40897 Conference Calendar
JOE R. WALKER,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
SHERRY DICKENS , Property Officer; VONDA PAGITT, Correctional Officer IV,
Defendants-Appellees.
- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 6:01-CV-92 - - - - - - - - - - February 21, 2002
Before JOLLY, JONES, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Joe R. Walker, Texas prisoner # 435844, appeals the
dismissal as frivolous of his
42 U.S.C. § 1983complaint pursuant
to
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Walker asserts that prison officials
retaliated against him for filing grievances and that his due
process rights were violated when he was not afforded the
opportunity to properly store his property prior to its
confiscation, in accordance with prison rules and procedures.
For the first time, Walker also argues that his First Amendment
* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. 01-40897 -2-
rights were violated. New allegations may not be raised and will
not be addressed for the first time on appeal. Leverette v.
Louisville Ladder Co.,
183 F.3d 339, 342(5th Cir. 1999), cert.
denied,
528 U.S. 1138(2000); Reeves v. Collins,
27 F.3d 174, 177(5th Cir. 1994). Accordingly, we decline consideration of
Walker’s First Amendment argument.
Walker’s due process argument fails to state a
constitutional claim cognizable under
42 U.S.C. § 1983. See
Myers v. Klevenhagen,
97 F.3d 91, 94(5th Cir. 1996).
Furthermore, Walker fails to demonstrate that the appellees were
retaliating against him when they confiscated his property. See
McDonald v. Steward,
132 F.3d 225, 231(5th Cir. 1998); Johnson
v. Rodriguez,
110 F.3d 299, 310(5th Cir. 1997); Whittington v.
Lynaugh,
842 F.2d 818, 819(5th Cir. 1988).
AFFIRMED.
Reference
- Status
- Unpublished