### IN THE UNI TED STAT ES COURT OFAPPEALS FOR THE FIF TH CIRCU IT

No. 11-40220 Summary Calendar

ROBERT CHARLES MORRIS, Plaintiff-Appellant

v. ELIZABETH E. CROSS; CHRIS W. AGAPIOU; S H E RRI L. MILLIGAN; R O B E RT H E RR E R

A ; C H RI S TY M

. H O I S I N GTON; SUSAN BAUER; WI LLIAM 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 M o rris, Texas prisoner # 1311083, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint pursu a nt to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) and Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. I n h i s 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 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 May3, 201 2 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk

Purs uant to 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5 , the cour t hasd ete rm inedt hat 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: 11-40220 Document: 00511844178 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/03/2012No. 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 co ntends that the district court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of Cross, Agapio u , and Milligan on his retaliation

c l a i m . I n order to state a valid retaliation claim, he must prove (1) hi s invocation of a specific constitutional right, (2) the defendants’ intent to retaliate against him for exercising that right, (3) a retaliatory a dv e r s e 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 c o n s titutional 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. F E D

. R. C IV

. P. 56. Morris contends that the district c o u rt should not have dismissed defendant Christy H o i s i n gton 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). B e c a u s e Morris does not challenge the district court’s dismissal of the other named de f

e n d a n t s under § 1915A, such claims are abandoned. Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner , 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 198 7).

2 Case: 11-40220 Document: 00511844178 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/03/2012No. 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 retaliat o ry a ctions. 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 dispu t e th at h e h a d 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 immedi at e hearing on his motion for an immediate court order, in which he asserted that prison officials had transferred him to a diffe r e n t p ri son 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 h av e 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 di strict court and

Spea rs v. MCcotter , 766 F.2d179( 5th Cir. 198 5). 1 3 Case: 11-40220 Document: 00511844178 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/03/2012No. 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 r e l i e f

on his § 1983 claims. Consequently, the j u d gment of the district court is AFFIRMED. Morris’s request to strik e the appellees’ brief for noncompliance wi t h th e F e deral Rules of Appellate Procedure and the Fifth Circuit Rules is DENIED.

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