IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-41252

Summary Calendar

DEDRICK LAMONE JENKINS,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

BRAD LIVINGSTON; TODD FOXWORTH; MARK DEARING,

Defendants-Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 6:09-CV-411

Before DEMOSS, STEWART, and ELROD, Circuit Judges

PER CURIAM:

*

Dedrick Lamone Jenkins, Texas prisoner # 1307915, appeals the dismissal

of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint, which pertained to a prison disciplinary

conviction he received following the alleged theft of his property by an inmate

named Ronald Davis and his physical altercation with Davis. Jenkins named

as defendants Brad Livingston, the executive director of the Texas Department

of Criminal Justice; Todd Foxworth, warden of the unit where Jenkins was

housed; and Mark Dearing, a sergeant involved in Jenkins’s disciplinary case.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

July 28, 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: 09-41252 Document: 00511187195 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/28/2010
No. 09-41252

The district court’s dismissal of Jenkins’s complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915A(b)(1) is reviewed de novo. Ruiz v. United States, 160 F.3d 273, 275 (5th

Cir. 1998).

Jenkins first challenges the district court’s dismissal of his claim of

deliberate indifference to his safety. Prison officials have a duty under the

Eighth Amendment to protect inmates from violence at the hands of other

prisoners. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 833 (1994). However, not every

injury inflicted by one inmate against another inmate rises to the level of a

constitutional violation. Id. at 834; Horton v. Cockrell, 70 F.3d 397, 400 (5th Cir.

1995). To establish a failure-to-protect claim, an inmate must show that the

conditions of his incarceration posed “a substantial risk of serious harm” and

that prison officials were deliberately indifferent to his need for protection.

Farmer, 511 U.S. at 834. Because Jenkins did not allege in the district court

that the defendants knew he would be attacked by Davis or knew he otherwise

faced an excessive risk to his health or safety, the district court did not err in

dismissing his claim of deliberate indifference to his safety. See Farmer, 511

U.S. at 837.

Second, Jenkins complains that the inadequate investigation of and

response to Davis’s alleged theft and assault resulted in the loss of Jenkins’s fan

and watch. The Fourteenth Amendment protects against the deprivation of

one’s property by state actors without due process of law. Parratt v. Taylor, 451

U.S. 527, 536-37 (1981), overruled on other grounds by Daniels v. Williams, 474

U.S. 327, 330-31 (1986). However, where the individuals acting under the color

of state law infringe a property interest through “random and unauthorized”

acts, the existence of adequate postdeprivation state remedies satisfies

procedural due process requirements by providing a means of redress for the

property deprivation and, accordingly, justifies dismissal of a § 1983 claim that

is based on the infringement. Id. at 537-43; Augustine v. Doe, 740 F.2d 322, 327-

28 (5th Cir. 1984). Because Texas provides an adequate state postdeprivation

2

Case: 09-41252 Document: 00511187195 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/28/2010
No. 09-41252

remedy, the district court did not err in dismissing Jenkins’s claim of property

loss resulting from any deficiency in the defendants’ response to Davis’s conduct.

See Murphy v. Collins, 26 F.3d 541, 543-44 (5th Cir. 1994).

Third, Jenkins contends that his procedural due process rights were

violated with respect to his disciplinary conviction. Jenkins would be entitled

to procedural due process with respect to his disciplinary proceeding if the

hearing implicated a protected liberty interest. See Ky. Dep’t of Corr. v.

Thompson, 490 U.S. 454, 460 (1989). Jenkins alleged that his disciplinary

conviction resulted in a punishment of 15 days of commissary restriction and one

day of solitary confinement, as well as a two-year set off in his parole. None of

those consequences implicated a protected liberty interest. See Madison v.

Parker, 104 F.3d 765, 768 (5th Cir. 1997) (commissary restriction); Luken v.

Scott, 71 F.3d 192, 193 (5th Cir. 1995) (solitary confinement); Orellana v. Kyle,

65 F.3d 29, 32 (5th Cir. 1995) (parole). Additionally, any property interest

stemming from the loss of Jenkins’s fan and watch was not implicated by his

disciplinary conviction because, according to Jenkins’s allegations, those items

were stolen by Davis before Jenkins’s disciplinary complaint was filed.

Fourth, Jenkins contends that Foxworth’s response to the grievance

Jenkins filed regarding the loss of his fan and watch constituted discrimination

based on Jenkins’s severe mental disorder. To the extent that Jenkins claims

discrimination based on violation of a prison regulation, we will not consider the

claim because it is raised for the first time on appeal. See Leverette v. Louisville

Ladder Co., 183 F.3d 339, 342 (5th Cir. 1999). In any event, a claim based on a

prison regulation violation would not be cognizable under § 1983 because “[a]

claim for relief under § 1983 must allege the deprivation of a right secured by

the Constitution or the laws of the United States by a defendant acting under

color of state law.” Calhoun v. Hargrove, 312 F.3d 730, 734 (5th Cir. 2002).

Insofar as Jenkins’s contention may be liberally construed as pertaining to the

district court’s dismissal of his discrimination claim under the Americans with

3

Case: 09-41252 Document: 00511187195 Page: 3 Date Filed: 07/28/2010
No. 09-41252

Disabilities Act (ADA), Jenkins has not briefed any argument challenging the

reasons for the district court’s decision and thus has failed to show that the

district court erred in dismissing his ADA claim. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d

222, 225 (5th Cir. 1993); Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813

F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987).

Fifth, Jenkins contends that the magistrate judge erred by not responding

to his objections to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. This

contention is unavailing because the district court conducted a de novo review

of Jenkins’s objections to the report and recommendation and determined that

they were without merit.

Jenkins’s contentions challenging the district court’s dismissal of his

§ 1983 complaint are unavailing. Accordingly, the district court’s judgment is

AFFIRMED.

4

Case: 09-41252 Document: 00511187195 Page: 4 Date Filed: 07/28/2010