Alex v. Stalder, et al

* 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
May 14, 2003
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-30154
Summary Calendar
RICKY JOSEPH ALEX,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
RICHARD L. STALDER; KELLY WARD;
BECKY MOSS; JAMIE FUSSELL; HENLEY,
Captain; RAY HANSON; BILL
HOLLENSHEAD,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
USDC No. 02-CV-327
--------------------
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Ricky Joseph Alex, Louisiana prisoner # 98130, appeals the
district court’s dismissal as frivolous of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983
lawsuit against various employees of the Wade Correctional
Center. He asserts that the district court abused its discretion
in dismissing his challenges to the defendants’ delays in
processing his prison grievances. He has not established that

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 03-30154
-2-
he suffered an “atypical and significant hardship . . . in
relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life.” Sandin v.
Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 484 (1995). His assertions that the delays
violated prison rules are insufficient by themselves to establish
a constitutional violation. See Hernandez v. Estelle, 788 F.2d
1154, 1158 (5th Cir. 1986).
Alex also contends that the district court erred in not
considering his assertion that the defendants violated his First
Amendment rights and violated the Ex Post Facto Clause by denying
him a publication. He has not established that the district
court abused its discretion in not allowing Alex to amend his
complaint with this issue, which was raised for the first time in
his objections to the magistrate judge’s report. See United
States v. Riascos, 76 F.3d 93, 94 (5th Cir. 1996); FED. R. CIV. P.
15(a).
Alex has not shown that the district court abused its
discretion in dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint as
frivolous. See Siglar v. Hightower, 112 F.3d 191, 193 (5th Cir.
1997). Consequently, the judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --