Loving v. Hansford, 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be
published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-11360
Summary Calendar
DOUGLAS R. LOVING,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
CHARLIE HANSFORD; HUROWIC WALKER;
NFN ANDERSON, Warden; NFN MOONYHAM,
Assistant Warden; TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF
CRIMINAL JUSTICE-INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION;
WINDHAM SCHOOL DISTRICT/TEXAS DEPARTMENT
OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE; ROACH UNIT PRISON;
NFN SEHORN, Mailroom Supervisor,
Defendants-Appellees.
__________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 2:00-CV-156
__________________________________________
March 1, 2002
Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Douglas R. Loving, Texas prisoner #611599, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his
42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights action as frivolous and for failure to state a claim pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915A and 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(c)(1). Loving contends that the district court erred in

-- 1 of 2 --

2
denying his motion for leave to amend his complaint and in dismissing his claims against Anderson
and Sehorn.
A party may amend his pleading once as a matter of course at any time before a responsive
pleading is served. FED. R. CIV.
P. 15(a). Loving was therefore entitled to amend his complaint without leave of court, and the
magistrate judge (“MJ”) erred in denying his motion to amend. This error, however, was
harmless, as Loving’s motion to amend sought not to modify or supplement his allegations, but
only to provide exhibits supporting his original complaint. The MJ’s consideration of those
exhibits in formulating his report and recommendation effectively provided Loving the action
requested in his motion to amend.
Loving has failed to argue on appeal, and has thus abandoned, his claims against all
defendants other than Sehorn and Anderson. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th
Cir. 1993). With respect to his claims against Sehorn and Anderson, an allegation that the
defendants violated a prison rule, without more, is insufficient to set forth a claim of a
constitutional violation. See Hernandez v. Estelle, 788 F.2d 1154, 1158 (5th Cir. 1986). The
district court thus did not err in dismissing Loving’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint as frivolous and
for failure to state a claim. The judgment is AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --