* 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 97-11294 

Summary Calendar

 

MARK ANTHONY CLARK,

also known as Kevin Frank Carter,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

JOHN DOE, 1, Drug Enforcement Agency;

JANE DOE, #1, Booking Officer; DR. VERNON FARTHING;

JOHN DOE, 2, Sergeant Classification Officer;

DON ADDINGTON, Jail Administrator;

D.L. “SONNY” KEESEE, Sheriff,

Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 5:97-CV-78-C

- - - - - - - - - -

August 20, 1998

Before JONES, SMITH, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Mark Anthony Clark, federal prisoner # 26409-077, has

appealed the dismissal as frivolous of his civil rights action,

based on events which allegedly occurred when he was a Lubbock

County Jail (“the Jail”) inmate. We AFFIRM.

Clark alleged claims (1) that he was denied medical

treatment for tuberculosis; (2) that he was housed under 
No. 97-11294

-2-

overcrowded, unsafe conditions; (3) that he was exposed to

harmful environmental tobacco smoke; and (4) that he was placed

in administrative segregation without due process. The

magistrate judge filed a report recommending dismissal of the

action, based on Clark’s answers to a questionnaire and his

medical and other jail records. See Eason v. Thaler, 14 F.3d 8,

9 (5th Cir. 1994); Banuelos v. McFarland, 41 F.3d 232, 233-34

(5th Cir. 1995).

The magistrate judge notified Clark of the necessity for

filing objections to the report, citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a) and

other authorities. However, Clark made only a general objection

that his claims were not frivolous.

In the final order of dismissal with prejudice, the district

court observed that Clark’s objections were inadequate, then

accepted the magistrate judge’s report after de novo review. 

Under these circumstances, Clark is not entitled to relief on

appeal unless there was plain error in the district court

proceedings. See Douglass v. United Services Auto. Ass’n, 79

F.3d 1415, 1428-29 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc).

Under the plain-error rule, if an appellant shows clear or

obvious error that affects his substantial rights, this court has

discretion to correct a forfeited error that seriously affects

the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial

proceedings. See United States v. Calverley, 37 F.3d 160, 162-64

(5th Cir. 1994) (en banc). When the nature of the claimed error

is a question of fact, however, the possibility that such a

finding could rise to the level of obvious error required to meet
No. 97-11294

-3-

part of the standard for plain error is remote. Robertson v.

Plano City of Texas, 70 F.3d 21, 23 (5th Cir. 1995).

Clark’s appeal is based on his contention that findings of

fact stated in the magistrate judge’s report are erroneous, based

on his alleged recollection of what happened to him in the Jail. 

Accordingly, Clark is not entitled to relief on grounds of plain

error. See Robertson, 70 F.3d at 23.

JUDGMENT AFFIRMED.