### IN THE UNI TED STATES COURT OFAPPEALS FOR THE FIF TH CIRCUIT

No. 10-60879 Summary Calendar

BACKARI MACKEY, Petitioner-Appellant

v. FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS; BRUCE PEARSON, Warden, Respondents-Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi USDC No. 5:09-CV-90

Before DAVIS, DeMOSS, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Backari Mackey, federal prisoner # 2 1 2 8 2

- 001, appeals the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition, which he filed to challenge his disciplinary proceeding. M a c key was convicted of use of marijuana and was sanctioned with a 3 0

- d ay term of disciplinary segregation, which was suspended pending 180 days of clear conduct, loss of 40 days of go o d conduct time, and visitation restrictions. We review the district court’s legal conclusions de novo; f a ctual findings are U n i te d S ta te s C o u rt o f A p p ea l s

F i ft h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D Sep tem ber 8 , 20 11 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk

Purs uant to 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court hasd ete rm inedthat this op inion sho uld not * be publ ish ed and is not pr ece dent excep t unde r the lim ite d cir cum st ance s se t forth in 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5 .4. Case: 10-60879 Document: 00511596114 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/08/2011No. 10-60879

reviewed for clear error. Henson v. U.S

. B u re a u of Prisons , 213 F.3d 897, 898 (5th Cir. 2000). Mackey does not challenge the district court’s determ i n ation that he received the required due process protections. See white brief, 1-12. Although
pro se briefs are af

f o r d e d l iberal construction, Haines v. Kerner , 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972), even pro se litigants must brief arguments in order to preserve them. Yohey v. Collins , 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993). Thus, M ackey has abandoned any challenge to the district court’s determination that he received the protections mandated by the Due Process Clause. See id. Mackey’s claims for habeas rel i e f ar e based on the assertion that prison officials acted arbitrarily a n d capriciously by failing to follow certain federal regulations and Bureau of Pri s o n s ( B OP) policy statements. Specifically, he contends that he is entitled to relief because prison officials (1) failed to comply with BOP Policy Statement 6060.08 in that they did not mail his urine sample for testing within 72 hours of collection; (2) failed to investigate the presence of another inmate’s identification number on his incident report, as r e quired by BOP Policy Statement 5270.07; ( 3 ) f ail ed to record a statement he gave to the Unit Discipline Committee; (4) improperly referred his case to the Disciplinary Hearing Officer (DHO) “for appropriate sanctions”; (4) failed to advise him of the right to challe nge the testing process of his urine sample through the Administrative Remedy Procedure, as required under 28 C.F.R. § 541.14; and (6) improperly allowed the prison unit’s Case Manager Coordin at o r t o act as the Alternate DHO. Col l ateral relief is not available for failure to comply with the formal requirements of rules in the absence of a ny i ndication that the petitioner was prej u di c ed. See Davis v. United States , 417 U.S. 333, 346 (1974) (28 U.S.C. § 2255 case). Here, the National Toxicology Laboratories reported that a urine sample provided by Mackey tested positive for marijuana. M a c k ey has not established that there were any d e f e c t s i n the chain of custody as to his urine
2 Case: 10-60879 Document: 00511596114 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/08/2011No. 10-60879

s a m p l e, nor has he shown that any delay in mailing the sample for t e s ti n g affected the results of the laboratory analysis. The evidence of Mackey’s positive drug test was considered at Mackey’s disciplinary hearing; additionally, Mackey admitted at the disciplinary hearing that he had smoked marijuana. Given the positive lab o r atory test, and Mackey’s admission of guilt, Mackey fails to establish that any of th e al l eged violations of federal regulations and/or BOP policy statements resulted in the required prejudice. See id. AFFIRMED.

3 Case: 10-60879 Document: 00511596114 Page: 3 Date Filed: 09/08/2011