Scott A. SAMFORD, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Warden C.S. STAPLES; R. Cleeve, Correctional Officer V Extortion Officer; Sergeant Stevens, Gang Intelligence; Shelia Torres, Correctional Officer IV; D. Johnson, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 06-20755
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit
June 19, 2007
237 Fed. Appx. 374
Before JONES, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
Conference Calendar.
PER CURIAM:*
Scott A. Samford, Jr., Texas prisoner # 835644, appeals the dismissal of his
Where a prisoner alleges, as Samford does, that the random and unauthorized actions of a state officer deprived him of his property, due process is satisfied if state law provides an adequate post-deprivation remedy. See Sheppard v. Louisiana Bd. of Parole, 873 F.2d 761, 763 (5th Cir. 1989). Texas has such a remedy. See Thompson v. Steele, 709 F.2d 381, 383 (5th Cir. 1983).
Samford also asserts that the district court erred by refusing to allow him to add a defendant or engage in discovery and that prison officials deliberately and illegally destroyed his property. Samford has abandoned these claims by failing to brief them adequately. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993).
Accordingly, the district court did not err in dismissing Samford‘s complaint as frivolous and for failure to state a claim. See Harris v. Hegmann, 198 F.3d 153, 156 (5th Cir. 1999). Samford‘s appeal lacks arguable merit and is dismissed as frivolous. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2; Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983). The dismissal of the
APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.
Ronald E. COLEMAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND CORRECTIONS; Richard L. Stalder; Kathleen Blanco, Governor; Barry Methany, Probation and Parole; Prison Transportation System (PTS); Diane Simon, Probation and Parole, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 06-30201
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit
June 19, 2007
237 Fed. Appx. 375
Before JONES, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
Conference Calendar.
PER CURIAM:*
Ronald E. Coleman, Louisiana prisoner # 119449, appeals the district court‘s dismissal as frivolous of his
For the first time on appeal, Coleman challenges the calculation of his sentence and argues that it violates the Ex Post Facto Clause. He also raises for the first time on appeal a challenge to the conditions of confinement at the East Feliciana Jail. “It is a bedrock principle of appellate review that claims raised for the first time on appeal will not be considered.” Stewart Glass & Mirror, Inc. v. U.S. Auto Glass Discount Centers, Inc., 200 F.3d 307, 316-17 (5th Cir. 2000). Thus, we decline to address Coleman‘s arguments raised for the first time on appeal.
Coleman does not challenge the district court‘s determination that his claims challenging his confinement and seeking release must be raised in a habeas corpus proceeding. He also does not challenge the district court‘s dismissal of his claims for damages as barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 114 S. Ct. 2364, 129 L. Ed. 2d 383 (1994). Coleman has abandoned these issues for purposes of appeal.