In these consolidated appeals, Defendant-Appellant Richard Mahogany, Jr., Louisiana prisoner # 123340, contests the district court’s dismissal of his § 1983 complaint against various employees of the Louisiana Department of Corrections, contending that they had initiated a false disciplinary action against him as a “reprisal” for his filing an administrative remedy procedure (ARP) complaint against them and submitting evidence in support of the ARP and possible future court proceedings. The district court dismissed the complaint as frivolous and for failure to state a claim because it was barred under Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994). Mahogany also challenges the district court’s order denying his motion for reconsideration of the magistrate judge’s (MJ) denial of his “Motion For Judgment/Rule to Show Cause” concerning the defendants’ alleged spoliation of evidence. This interlocutory order merged into the district court’s final judgment and became reviewable in Mahogany’s appeal of the final judgment. See Dickinson v. Auto Ctr. Mfg. Co., 733 F.2d 1092, 1102 (5th Cir. 1983).

Mahogany’s retaliation claim is not barred under Heck because “favorable termination [of allegedly retaliatory disciplinary proceedings] is not a requisite of a retaliatory interference claim.” Woods v. Smith, 60 F.3d 1161, 1164 (5th Cir. 1995). Mahogany has not, however, alleged “a chronology of events from which retaliation may plausibly be inferred,” nor has he shown that the defendants’ destruction of evidence supported such a chronology of events. Jones v. Greninger, 188 F.3d 322, 324-25 (5th Cir. 1999).

Accordingly, the district court’s dismissal of Mahogany’s complaint is AFFIRMED.

Despite our briefing order, counsel failed adequately to brief the issue whether the district court erred in failing to consider Mahogany’s retaliation claim or in denying his motion for judgment; neither has counsel addressed the issue whether Mahogany has established a retaliation claim. Counsel is ORDERED to show cause within 30 days why she should not be sanctioned. See Coghlan v. Starkey, 852 F.2d 806, 808-09 (5th Cir. 1988).