Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-03-60827/USCOURTS-ca5-03-60827-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Denise Bowels
Appellee
Kelvin Bernard Stephens
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

* 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.

1 Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of

Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). 

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

April 20, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 03-60827

Conference Calendar

 

KELVIN BERNARD STEPHENS,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

KHURSHID Z. YUSUFF,

Defendants,

DENISE BOWELS; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendants - Appellees

--------------------

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 5:00-CV-134-BrS

--------------------

Before JOLLY, JONES, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Kelvin Bernard Stephens, federal prisoner #48329-019,

appeals from the district court’s dismissal of his civil-rights

lawsuit, in which Stephens alleged claims under the Privacy Act,

the Freedom of Information Act, Bivens1, the Federal Tort Claims

 Case: 03-60827 Document: 0051314616 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/20/2004
No. 03-60827

-2-

Act (“FTCA”), and 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, 1985(3), and 1986. On

appeal, Stephens has briefed only his challenge to the dismissal

of his FTCA and Bivens claims seeking monetary damages for

failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. He

has therefore abandoned any challenge to the dismissal of his

other claims. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th

Cir. 1993).

Stephens sought monetary damages in his FTCA and Bivens

claims to compensate him for alleged mental suffering he

attributed to the defendants’ actions. As he did not allege a

physical injury, his claims were barred by 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(e). 

His challenged claims were therefore properly dismissed for

failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. See

Harris v. Hegmann, 198 F.3d 153, 156 (5th Cir. 1999).

The district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.

 Case: 03-60827 Document: 0051314616 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/20/2004