Morrow v. Collin, et al

1 Pursuant to Local Rule 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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 Local Rule
47.5.4.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
__________________
No. 95-40702
Summary Calendar
__________________
RICHARD C. MORROW,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
J. COLLINS, Exec. Dir.; W. SCOTT,
95-Director; L. WOODS, Warden; ET AL.,
Defendants-Appellees.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. C-95-CV-36
- - - - - - - - - -
March 15, 1996
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DUHÉ and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:1
Richard C. Morrow appeals the dismissal of his civil rights
suit for frivolousness. Because Morrow fails to raise a due
process argument concerning the October 1994 and February 1995
disciplinary proceedings, any such argument is deemed abandoned
on appeal. See Eason v. Thaler, 14 F.3d 8, 9 n.1 (5th Cir.
1994).
Morrow argues that the TDCJ rules, by their wording, created
a constitutionally protected liberty interest for a prisoner to

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 95-40702
-2-
2 Spears v. McCotter, 766 F.2d 179 (1985).
be free from the arbitrary practices associated with the
progressive release schedule and Morrow's placement on extended
lockdown or administrative segregation for 60 days, without known
cause, beginning December 2, 1994. "[A]dministrative
segregation, without more, does not constitute a deprivation of a
constitutionally cognizable liberty interest." Luken v. Scott,
71 F.3d 192, 193 (5th Cir. 1995). Because Morrow's complaint
lacked an arguable basis in law, the district court did not abuse
its discretion in dismissing the suit as frivolous. See Denton
v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33 (1992).
Morrow's contention concerning the lack of a Spears2 hearing
is equally without merit. Given that Morrow provided sufficient
factual detail in his complaint and had opportunity to respond to
the motion for dismissal, a Spears hearing, which is in the
nature of a motion for a more definite statement, see Wilson v.
Barrientos, 926 F.2d 480, 482 (5th Cir. 1991), was not necessary.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --