Matherly v. Seal, et al

* 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
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
__________________
No. 95-30039
Conference Calendar
__________________
DANNY McCRAY MATHERLY, Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
DONNIE R. SEAL AND ED C. DAY, Defendants,
DONNIE SEAL, Defendant-Appellee.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
____________________
No. 95-30040
Conference Calendar
____________________
DANNY McCRAY MATHERLY, Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
DONNIE R. SEAL AND ED C. DAY, Defendants-Appellees.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana
USDC No. 94-CV-1168 F
- - - - - - - - - -
August 22, 1995
Before KING, JOLLY, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*

-- 1 of 3 --

Nos. 95-30039 & 95-30040
-2-
profession." Pursuant to that Rule, the court has determined
that this opinion should not be published.
Danny M. Matherly, a prisoner in the Washington Correctional
Institute, filed a complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that
prison guard Donnie R. Seal searched Matherly's foot locker and
rifled his files. The dismissal of this suit is the subject of
case number 95-30039. The parties agreed to proceed before a
magistrate judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). The district court's
findings of fact are reviewed for clear error; matters of law are
reviewed de novo. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 52; Valencia v. Wiggins,
981 F.2d 1440, 1449 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 113 S. Ct. 2998
(1993).
The district court was correct in concluding that Matherly
has no Fourth Amendment protection against an unreasonable search
of his prison cell. Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 526 (1984).
Matherly did not specifically allege that anything had been
removed from the files or that the inspection of the files had
hampered his legal activities. As such, Matherly has failed to
state "a cognizable constitutional claim either for a denial of
access to the courts or for denial of [his] right to free speech
by alleging that [his] . . . legal mail was opened and inspected
for contraband outside [his] presence." Brewer v. Wilkinson, 3
F.3d 816, 825 (5th Cir. 1993) (case addressed incoming legal
mail), cert. denied, 114 S. Ct. 1081 (1994).
The district court's denial of his motion to proceed on IFP
is the subject of Matherly's appeal in case number 95-30040. The

-- 2 of 3 --

Nos. 95-30039 & 95-30040
-3-
district court was correct in denying IFP as moot because
Matherly had already been granted IFP status.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --