* 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

profession." Pursuant to that Rule, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________

No. 95-30489

Conference Calendar

__________________

JAMES WEST,

 Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

SHARON PARKER, Sergeant;

WASHINGTON CORRECTIONAL

INSTITUTE,

 Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No. CA-95-900-C

- - - - - - - - - -

August 23, 1995

Before KING, JOLLY, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

James West asserts that he was "given a rule violation" and

placed in administrative segregation for two days for "trying to

show a letter from a ranking officer" to defendant Sergeant

Parker. West essentially challenges the sufficiency of the

evidence to support his conviction at the disciplinary hearing,
No. 95-30489

-2-

arguing that if Parker "had listened or at least looked at the

letter there would have been no write up or rule violation." 

West does not allege that the disciplinary proceeding itself was

deficient in any manner.

Prison disciplinary proceedings will be overturned "only

where there is no evidence whatsoever to support the decision of

the prison officials." Reeves v. Pettcox, 19 F.3d 1060, 1062

(5th Cir. 1994). West's disciplinary report, which he attached

to his complaint, shows that he pleaded guilty at the

disciplinary hearing to aggravated disobedience. Parker, the

charging officer, stated that she gave West a direct verbal order

to leave the dormitory until completion of inspection and that

West "flatly refused to comply with [her] order." Parker stated

that West was "very argumentative" and caused a disturbance in

the dormitory. There is thus some evidence in the record, namely

the charging officer's report and the fact that West pleaded

guilty, to support the decision reached at the prison

disciplinary proceeding. The district court did not abuse its

discretion by dismissing West's claim pursuant to § 1915(d).

West further argues that his constitutional rights were

violated because Parker was given "unrestricted access" to his

dormitory, an "open room with the shower, urinal, and commodes

all in plain and clear view," thus forcing him "to be viewed by a

stranger of the opposite sex." However, this court has

previously upheld the use of female guards in guard towers giving

a full view of male inmates taking showers. See Letcher v.

Turner, 968 F.2d 508, 510 (5th Cir. 1992). No constitutional
No. 95-30489

-3-

violation occurs when naked male inmates are viewed by female

guards if the presence of female guards is required to protect a

legitimate government interest such as maintaining security at a

correctional facility. Id. West has not argued that Parker's

presence was unnecessary to maintain security, only that her

presence violated his rights under the Fourth and the Eighth

Amendments. Thus, as in Letcher, there is no basis for West's

claim of a constitutional violation due to the presence of a

female guard in his dormitory. See Letcher, 968 F.2d at 510. 

The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing

West's complaint pursuant to § 1915(d).

AFFIRMED.