* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the lim ited circumstances set forth in 5 T H C IR

. R.

47.5.4. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FIFTH CIRCUIT

_________________

No. 97-20286

(Summary Calendar)

_________________

KENNETH LERON SATTERWHITE,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

VE RNICE SMALL; DAVID B BRYANT; R L OTT,

Warden; KENT RAMSEY; JOHN E STICE; F E

FIGUEROA,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Southern District of Texas

(H-95-CV-4694)

January 14, 1998

Before WIENER, BARKSDALE, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Kenneth L. Satterwhite, Texas prisoner #393238, appeals from

the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action as frivolous.

Satterwhite contends that the district court erred by dismissing1 Spears v. McCotter , 766 F.2d 179 (5th Cir. 1985)

-2- his action as frivolous follo wing the imposition of a partial

filing fee; that prison officials retaliated against him for using

the prison grievanc e system by filing false disciplinary charges

against him; that he did not receive due process at his

disciplinary hearing; that prison offic ials conspired to deprive

him of due process at his disciplinary hearing; that a prison

warden retaliat ed against him for filing the current lawsuit by

transferring him to a different prison unit; and that at his

Spears 1 hearing the district court improperly relied on the prison

record and the testimony of a prison official to contradict

Satterwhite’s allegations.

Satterwhite filed his complaint and paid a $30 partial filing

fee before the effective date of the PLRA. He failed, however, to

serve Ramsey and Stice. While the Prison Litigation Reform Act

(PLRA) allows district courts to dismiss a pauper/prisoner’s

complaint as frivolous at any time despite the payment of a partial

f iling fee, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), prior to the PLRA such a

dismissal was not authorized. S e e Grissom v. Scott

, 934 F.2d 656,

657 (5th Cir. 1991). We need not determine, however, whether this

provision of the PLRA applies retroactively to Satterwhite because

we may affirm the dismissal on other grounds. See Tyler v. Mmes.

Pasqua & Toloso , 748 F.2d 283, 287 (5th Cir. 1984), o verruled on

other grounds

, Victorian v. Miller

, 813 F.2d 718, 724 (5th Cir.-3-

1987); Irving v. Thigpen

, 732 F.2d 1215, 1216 n.2 (5th Cir. 1984).

Because Ramsey and Stice remain unserved, we vacate the dismissal

with prejudice and remand to the distr ict court for entry of an

order of dismissal without prejudice. S ee Marts v. Hines

, 117 F.3d

1504, 1506 (5th Cir. 1997) (en banc); Kersh v. Derozier , 851 F.2d

1509, 1511-1512 (5th Cir. 1988).

Satterwhite contends he was retaliated against for pur suing

prison grievances. He discusses the law he believes is relevant to

his argument but discusses no facts relev ant to such argument

beyond stating that the motivation of the relevant defendants was

based on his disciplinary hearing a nd the appeal resulting

therefrom. Satterwhite has failed to adequately brief this issue.

See Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner

, 813 F.2d 744,

748 (5th Cir. 1987).

Satterwhite’s punishment of 15 days solitary confinement and

a reduction in line class did not impose the type of atypical and

significant hardship on Satt erwhite in relation to the ordinary

incidents of prison life that would give rise to a liberty

interest. S ee Sandin v. Connor

, 515 U.S. 472, 484, 115 S. Ct.

2293, 2301, 132 L.Ed.2d 418 (1995). Satterwhite has failed to

state a due process claim regarding his disciplinary hearing.

Satterwhite contends that the defendants conspired to violate

his rights during and after his disciplinary hearing, but he offers

no detailed factual arguments in his appellate brief. He has-4-

failed to adequately brief the issue for appeal. S ee Brinkmann

,

813 F.2d at 748.

Satterwhite’s allegations against the prison warden do not

give rise to a plausible inference of retaliation. Satterwhite did

not name the warden as a defendant in his ini tial complaint, and

none of the warden’s actions was at issue. Satterwhite was

t ransferred to another prison unit before he called the warden’s

actions into question in his supplemental complaint. The

chronology alleged by Satterwhite does not give rise to an

infere nce of retaliation, and Satterwhite has made no other

allegations giving rise to such an inference. Satterwhite has

failed to state a claim of retaliation against the warden. S ee

Woods v. Smith , 60 F.3d 1161, 1166 (5th Cir. 1995), c ert. denied

sub nom

, Palermo v. Woods, 116 S. Ct. 800, 133 L.Ed.2d 747 (1996).

Because Satterwhite has failed to brief two of his appellate issues

and because he failed to state a claim regarding his other issues,

the dismissal of his complaint is affirmed except as to Ramsey and

Stice.

AFFIRMED in part and VACATED and REMANDED in part.