IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-41087

Summary Calendar

MICHAEL W. JEWELL,

Plaintiff–Appellant,

v.

OLIVER J. BELL; BRAD LIVINGSTON; RISSIE OWENS,

Defendants–Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 6:09-CV-181

Before GARZA, DENNIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

*

In a pro se 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint Michael W. Jewell, Texas prisoner

# 212516, sued Oliver J. Bell, Chairman of the Texas Department of Criminal

Justice (TDCJ); Brad Livingston, Executive Director of the TDCJ; and Rissie

Owens, Presiding Officer of the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles. Upon the

motion of the defendants, the district court dismissed the complaint for failure

to state a claim upon which relief may be granted under FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6).

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

July 29, 2010

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

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.

Case: 09-41087 Document: 00511188663 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/29/2010
No. 09-41087

“This court reviews a district court’s dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) de novo,

accepting all well-pleaded facts as true and viewing those facts in the light most

favorable to the plaintiffs.” Dorsey v. Portfolio Equities, Inc., 540 F.3d 333, 338

(5th Cir. 2008) (internal quotation marks omitted). “To survive a motion to

dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to

‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct.

1937, 1949 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)).

Jewell first challenges the district court’s denial of leave to amend his

complaint. Although the district court did not permit Jewell to amend his

complaint, he was provided an opportunity to plead his best case when he was

directed to respond to the defendants’ motion to dismiss. Bazrowx v. Scott, 136

F.3d 1053, 1054 (5th Cir. 1998); Jacquez v. Procunier, 801 F.2d 789, 790-93 (5th

Cir. 1986). This court’s review of the record, including the amended complaint

that Jewell attempted to file, indicates that the district court did not abuse its

discretion by denying leave to amend, because any amendment would have been

futile. See Martin’s Herend Imports, Inc. v. Diamond & Gem Trading United

States of America Co., 195 F.3d 765, 770-71 (5th Cir. 1999).

Jewell’s allegations against Bell and Livingston are speculative,

conclusional, and fail to state a claim for § 1983 relief. See Farmer v. Brennan,

511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994); Babb v. Dorman, 33 F.3d 472, 476 (5th Cir. 1994);

Thompkins v. Belt, 828 F.2d 298, 304 & n.8 (5th Cir. 1987); Green v. McKaskle,

770 F.2d 445, 446-47 (5th Cir. 1985). Jewell’s claims against Owens are

similarly speculative and therefore do not state a claim for relief. See Village of

Willowbrook v. Olech, 528 U.S. 562, 564 (2000); California Dep’t of Corr. v.

Morales, 514 U.S. 499, 508-09 (1995); Wallace v. Quarterman, 516 F.3d 351,

354-56 (5th Cir. 2008); Johnson v. Rodriguez, 110 F.3d 299, 308 (5th Cir. 1997).

Next, Jewell argues that he should have been allowed to appeal to the

district court from the magistrate judge’s decision to withdraw its order that he

amend his complaint. Although the district court did not provide reasons for

2

Case: 09-41087 Document: 00511188663 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/29/2010
No. 09-41087

denying Jewell’s motions to amend,the district court nonetheless denied Jewell’s

motions when it denied all pending motions. Thus, Jewell did appeal the

magistrate judge’s order to the district court, although he did not receive a

favorable result.

Jewell also argues that the district court erred by denying him leave to

conduct discovery, yet he fails to explain how his discovery requests would have

impacted the determination that he failed to state a claim. He therefore has

failed to establish that the district court abused its discretion by denying his

discovery requests. See Williamson v. United States Dep’t of Agric., 815 F.2d

368, 382 (5th Cir. 1987).

Finally, while Jewell asserts that the district court did not liberally

construe his pleadings, he fails to provide specific examples of how his

allegations were misconstrued. This argument does not reveal error in the

district court’s determination that dismissal was warranted.

For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is

AFFIRMED.

3

Case: 09-41087 Document: 00511188663 Page: 3 Date Filed: 07/29/2010