David Salinas v. Charley Valdez, et al

Filing

UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [13-50231 Affirmed ] Judge: TMR , Judge: EHJ , Judge: ECP Mandate pull date is 02/27/2014 [13-50231]

Case: 13-50231

Document: 00512524932

Page: 1

Date Filed: 02/06/2014

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Fifth Circuit

FILED
No. 13-50231
Summary Calendar

February 6, 2014
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk

DAVID R. SALINAS,
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
CHARLEY VALDEZ, Director/Supervisor of Classification and Records / In his
Individual Capacity; JONI WHITE, Director/Supervisor of Classification and
Records / In his Individual Capacity,
Defendants-Appellees
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 5:13-CV-10
Before REAVLEY, JONES, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
David R. Salinas, Texas prisoner # 1700761, appeals the district court’s
dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint as frivolous and for failure to state
a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A and 1915(e)(2)(B). We review the
district court’s dismissal de novo. See Geiger v. Jowers, 404 F.3d 371, 373 (5th
Cir. 2005).
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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.
*

Case: 13-50231

Document: 00512524932

Page: 2

Date Filed: 02/06/2014

No. 13-50231
If his brief is liberally construed, Salinas asserts that the district court’s
dismissal was error, urging that he stated a cognizable due-process claim
regarding the denial of credit for time served in federal custody and that Heck
v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), does not bar the claim. He additionally
contends that the district court’s dismissal of his suit violated his
constitutional right to a jury trial.
Salinas briefs no argument challenging the district court’s dismissal of
his claims regarding the denial of good-conduct and work time, the denial of
release to mandatory supervision, or retaliation, nor does he otherwise renew
those claims or his Eighth Amendment claim; these claims are therefore
abandoned.

See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993);

Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir.
1987).
Salinas fails to demonstrate any error on the district court’s part in
dismissing his lawsuit. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A. Accordingly,
the district court’s judgment is affirmed.
AFFIRMED.

2