(caption unavailable)

*Local Rule 47.5 provides: "The publication of opinions that
have no precedential value and merely decide particular cases on
the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes needless
expense on the public and burdens on the legal profession."
Pursuant to that Rule, the Court has determined that this opinion
should not be published.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
For the Fifth Circuit
No. 92-4812
Summary Calendar
Willie Paul White,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
VERSUS
James A. Collins, Director,
Texas Dept. of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division, ET AL.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
For the Eastern District of Texas
(CA9-92-43)
March 2, 1993
Before THORNBERRY, DAVIS, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
THORNBERRY, Circuit Judge*:
Willie Paul White filed a civil rights suit against the Texas
Department of Criminal Justice and others. He appeals the
dismissal of his § 1983 action. We affirm.
Facts and Prior Proceedings

-- 1 of 3 --

2
Texas Prisoner Willie Paul White, proceeding pro se and in
form pauperis, sued the Texas Department of Criminal Justice,
Institutional Division and several of its personnel under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1983. Basically, White complains of an incident wherein he was
asked by a corrections officer to show his special meal card to the
"boss" (another correctional officer). In his complaint, White
explains that because the term "boss" is reminiscent of slavery and
he is greatly offended by the use of the term in the prison, he
refused to show the special meal card to the corrections officer.
He was subsequently ordered to return to his cell. During the
return to his cell, he complained to other officers and inmates of
his treatment and as a result was then handcuffed and confined in
the pre-hearing detention area. White alleges that the handcuffs
were very tight and that the corrections officer jerked on the
handcuffs. While in the pre-hearing detention area, White asked
for his lunch, and it was denied because by this time, lunch was no
longer being served. White alleges that all of the officers
conspired against him and that the denial of lunch constituted
cruel and unusual punishment. White was subjected to disciplinary
proceedings because of his behavior during these incidents. He
claims he was subjected to false disciplinary charges and was
placed in prehearing detention without due process.
The magistrate judge held a hearing pursuant to Spears v.
McCotter, 766 F.2d 179 (5th Cir. 1985). The magistrate judge
recommended that White's complaint about due process in the
disciplinary hearing be dismissed without prejudice, subject to re-

-- 2 of 3 --

1 White was ordered to pay a monetary sanction of $50.00
before filing any further pleadings either in the district court or
in this Court without first obtaining leave of court to do so. The
action before us today is not subject to the monetary sanction
because it was filed prior to the sanction.
3
filing so that White could exhaust habeas remedies. The magistrate
further recommended dismissal of all the other claims as frivolous.
Over White's objections, the district court adopted the magistrate
judge's report and recommendations. White appeals the district
court's decision to this Court.
Discussion
After comprehensive review of the record and close attention
to the Petitioner's claims, we conclude that they are without merit
and decline to address them further.
We note that this Court, in a separate opinion, has already
assessed sanctions against the Petitioner. Willie Paul White v.
Annette Strauss, ET AL., No. 92-1229 (5th Cir. February 12, 1993)
(unpublished opinion). In that case, Petitioner was sanctioned for
filing six patently frivolous appeals to this Court in that
particular cause of action.1 While we agree that sanctions are
appropriate in this case as well, we elect not to sanction
Petitioner at this time. Should the Petitioner bring another
frivolous action, he is warned that further sanctions will follow.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, we affirm.

-- 3 of 3 --