IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-40220

Summary Calendar

ROBERT CHARLES MORRIS,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

ELIZABETH E. CROSS; CHRIS W. AGAPIOU; SHERRI L. MILLIGAN;

ROBERT HERRERA; CHRISTYM. HOISINGTON; SUSAN BAUER; WILLIAM

STEPHENS; NATHANIEL QUARTERMAN,

Defendants-Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 6:09-CV-236

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, and ELROD, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Robert Charles Morris, Texas prisoner # 1311083, appeals the district

court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915A(b)(1) and Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. In his civil

rights complaint, he asserted that in February 2009, defendants Elizabeth E.

Cross, Chris W. Agapiou, and Sherri L. Milligan retaliated against him for filing

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

May 3, 2012

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: 11-40220 Document: 00511844178 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/03/2012
No. 11-40220

a state lawsuit against Milligan by seizing some of his personal property during

a shakedown search. He maintained that the other defendants failed to conduct

adequate investigations into his grievances, denied him relief on his grievances,

and failed to respond to letters he wrote pertaining to the search and seizure of

his property.

On appeal, Morris contends that the district court erred in granting

summary judgment in favor of Cross, Agapiou, and Milligan on his retaliation

claim. In order to state a valid retaliation claim, he must prove (1) his

invocation of a specific constitutional right, (2) the defendants’ intent to retaliate

against him for exercising that right, (3) a retaliatory adverse act, and

(4) causation. Jones v. Greninger, 188 F.3d 322, 324-25 (5th Cir. 1999). Morris

has failed to “establish that but for the retaliatory motive,” his property would

not have been seized. Woods v. Smith, 60 F.3d 1161, 1166 (5th Cir. 1995). 

Because Morris failed to show a constitutional violation, the district court

properly concluded that Cross, Agapiou, and Milligan were entitled to qualified

immunity. See Ontiveros v. City of Rosenberg, Tex., 564 F.3d 379, 382 (5th Cir.

2009). In the absence of a “genuine dispute as to any material fact,” the district

court properly granted summary judgment. FED. R. CIV. P. 56.

Morris contends that the district court should not have dismissed

defendant Christy Hoisington from suit because her failure to conduct an

adequate investigation into his grievance implicates due process. He is incorrect

in this assertion, because he lacks a protected interest in a favorable resolution

to his grievances. See Geiger v. Jowers, 404 F.3d 371, 374 (5th Cir. 2005). This

claim lacks a legal or factual basis, and the district court properly dismissed it

pursuant to § 1915A(b)(i). See Martin v. Scott, 156 F.3d 578, 580 (5th Cir. 1998). 

Because Morris does not challenge the district court’s dismissal of the other

named defendants under § 1915A, such claims are abandoned. Brinkmann v.

Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987).

2

Case: 11-40220 Document: 00511844178 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/03/2012
No. 11-40220

The district court concluded that claims raised by Morris relating to

incidents that occurred in January 2010 should be dismissed without prejudice

because Morris had failed to exhaust his administrative remedies at the time he

raised the allegations. See 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). On appeal, Morris asserts that

the district court should have considered the January 2010 incidents as a

continuation of the February 2009 retaliatory actions. Section 1997e(a)

mandates exhaustion of all administrative remedies prior to the filing of a § 1983

action. Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 733-34 (2001); Wright v. Hollingsworth,

260 F.3d 357, 358 (5th Cir. 2001). As Morris does not dispute that he had not

exhausted his remedies at the time he attempted to add the January 2010 claims

to his case, the district court did not err in dismissing these allegations without

prejudice. See Booth, 532 U.S. at 741 n.6.

Morris also contends that the district court erred in denying him discovery

before granting summary judgment. He also maintains that the district court

should have held an immediate hearing on his motion for an immediate court

order, in which he asserted that prison officials had transferred him to a

different prison unit solely to separate him from his proposed witnesses and

render him unable to obtain affidavits. Because the defendants raised qualified

immunity, Morris was not entitled to proceed with discovery, and the evidence

that he proposes that he would have discovered or presented would not have

created a genuine issue of material fact. See Heitschmidt v. City of Houston, 161

F.3d 834, 840 (5th Cir. 1998); Rule 56(a). Additionally, Morris asserts that the

magistrate judge abused her discretion by refusing to accept documentary

evidence at a Spears hearing. However, his proposed evidence would not have 1

presented a genuine dispute as to the fact of causation for his retaliation claim

and would not have shown that he had exhausted his administrative remedies

relating to the January 2010 incidents. Therefore, the district court and

Spears v. MCcotter, 766 F.2d 179 (5th Cir. 1985). 1

3

Case: 11-40220 Document: 00511844178 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/03/2012
No. 11-40220

magistrate judge did not abuse their discretion in denying his claims relating to

discovery. See King v. Dogan, 31 F.3d 344, 346 (5th Cir. 1994).

Morris has not established that the district court erred in denying relief

on his § 1983 claims. Consequently, the judgment of the district court is

AFFIRMED. Morris’s request to strike the appellees’ brief for noncompliance

with the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure and the Fifth Circuit Rules is

DENIED.

4

Case: 11-40220 Document: 00511844178 Page: 4 Date Filed: 05/03/2012