David Salinas v. Charley Valdez, et al


UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED.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

Download PDF
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?