Louisiana prisoner Roderick President appeals from the summary judgment dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint alleging that he had been detrimentally exposed to environmental tobacco smoke. In dismissing his complaint, the district court ruled that President had not propounded either evidence suggesting that the exposure was the cause of his various ailments or evidence suggesting that recent changes to his prison’s smoking policy were ineffective. We affirm.

President has filed before this court on appeal affidavits of several inmates, including himself, in an attempt to show that the prison’s smoking policy is not enforced. These affidavits, however, do not appear in the record, and they are not referenced therein. As the affidavits were not before the district court, we will not consider them now as part of President’s summary judgment evidence. See Munoz v. Orr, 200 F.3d 291, 303 (5th Cir. 2000). Moreover, because President gives no explanation, either in his briefs on appeal or in the record before the district court, as to why he could not file these affidavits, including his own, before the district court in support of his claim, the district court’s failure to grant President’s Rule 56(f) motion was not abuse of discretion. See Beattie v. Madison County Sch. Dist., 254 F.3d 595, 605-06 (5th Cir. 2001).

Furthermore, because 28 U.S.C. § 1915 does not give the district court the authority to either pay or waive fees for the services President requested of the United States Marshals, the district court properly denied President’s motion for leave to perform a cotinine test. 1 See Pedraza v. Jones, 71 F.3d 194, 196 (5th Cir. 1995).

AFFIRMED.