(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should not be published.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. 93-1294
Summary Calendar
ASA GORDON DANIEL,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
VERSUS
JIM BOWLES, Dallas County Sheriff, et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas at Dallas
(3:92-CV-0406-P)
(January 3, 1993)
Before GARWOOD, SMITH, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges:
PER CURIAM:*
Daniel, acting pro se, filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983 against
the sheriff of Dallas County, the director of nursing at the Dallas
County jail, the jail commander, an unnamed physician working at
the Dallas County jail, and Dallas County jail nurse, asserting
various complaints regarding the denial of or inadequacy of medical
treatment afforded to him while he was incarcerated at the Dallas

-- 1 of 3 --

2
County jail, both as a pre-trial detainee and a post conviction
prisoner.
The complaint was referred to the magistrate judge who
submitted two different sets of interrogatories to Daniel and
permitted Daniel to file an amended complaint to better define his
claim. The magistrate judge then filed a 14 page report setting
forth his findings of facts and his conclusions, and his
recommendation that Daniel'z complaint be dismissed pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915(d). The district judge approved and adopted the
findings and conclusions and the recommendation of the magistrate
judge and the case was dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d).
We have carefully reviewed the original complaint and the
amended complaint filed by Daniel and the two sets of answers which
he filed to the interrogatories propounded by the magistrate. We
AFFIRM the judgment of the trial court dismissing Daniel's claims
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d).

-- 2 of 3 --

** Because there is no request for oral argument, this special
concurrence is consistent with summary calendar disposition.
wjl:\opin\93-01294.opn
HRD-Rev.12/27/93 3
GARWOOD, Circuit Judge, specially concurring:**
Daniel's pro se brief on appeal consists of nothing more than
wholly general statements of law concerning the duty to provide
medical treatment to prisoners and not to overcrowd prisons, the
appropriateness of a totality of conditions test to determine
whether conditions of confinement constitute cruel and unusual
punishment, the desirability of judges being sensitive to possible
abuses of prisoners, and the appropriateness of appointing counsel
for a pro se litigant who has a colorable claim for relief. The
only thing in Daniel's brief even remotely alluding to anything
about this suit, or any of the rulings made below, is the prayer
for relief asking that this Court "remand this action back to the
lower court with the recommendation that counsel be appointed for
plaintiff and that Federal Marshals be ordered to provide process
of service upon the defendants." So far as this may complain of
the failure of the court below to appoint counsel, no exceptional
circumstances and no abuse of discretion appear. Even with the
most liberal construction and reading, Daniel's brief presents
nothing else for review. See Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy
Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987). Nor does it
appear that affirmance would result in a manifest miscarriage of
justice.

-- 3 of 3 --