Stinson v. Scott, 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 99-50042
Summary Calendar
SAMUEL DENNIS STINSON,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
WAYNE SCOTT; MELINDA HOYLE BOZARTH,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. A-97-CV-383-JN
--------------------
January 28, 2000
Before DAVIS, EMILIO M. GARZA, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Samuel Dennis Stinson, Texas state prisoner #516177, appeals
from the district court’s dismissal of his civil rights suit.
Stinson’s second motion to supplement the record on appeal, filed
on December 7, 1999, is GRANTED.
Stinson argues that he was required to serve four years on a
previous two-year sentence and that the previous conviction had
been improperly used to enhance his present sentence and was
still being used to deny him parole. The writ of habeas corpus
is the sole federal remedy for Stinson to challenge the fact or

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 99-50042
-2-
duration of his confinement. See Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S.
475, 500 (1973). Stinson’s habeas claims are therefore not
cognizable in this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 proceeding. Stinson’s claims
that he was retaliated against by prison officials and denied
access to the courts are without merit. See Woods v. Edwards, 51
F.3d 577, 580-81 (5th Cir. 1995); Thompson v. Steele, 709 F.2d
381, 382 (5th Cir. 1983). Stinson’s remaining claims are deemed
abandoned on appeal because they are not adequately briefed. See
Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 225 (5th Cir. 1993).
Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
Stinson’s first motion to supplement the record on appeal and his
motion to consolidate the present appeal with his appeal in No.
99-50364 are DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --