* 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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 limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

.

R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit



## FILED

August 8, 2003

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-41271

Summary Calendar

RUSTY REEDER,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

THE PARIS NEWS; JEFF JONES, Corporal, Police Officer, City of

Paris; UP WHITE, Manager, Social Security Administration; UP

SUPERVILLE, Judge, Lamar County Court; CITY OF PARIS,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

(3:01-CV-33)

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

PER CURIAM: *

Rusty Reeder appeals the dismissal of his pro se

, in forma

pauperis 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. (Reeder’s motion to supplement

the record is DENIED .)

Reeder first contends the Paris News violated his freedom of

speech by not publishing an article about him as he had requested.

By not addressing the dismissal of the Paris New s because it was

not a state actor, Reeder has waived any challenge to this ruling.2

See Yohey v. Collins , 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993).

Reeder next asserts that Corporal Jones told him he would be

arrested if he continued to stay in a park while displaying a sign

near a wedding, prompting Reeder to leave the park. T he disrict

court ruling that Reeder did not state a claim against Corporal

Jones is not plain error. S ee Steadman v. Texas Rangers

, 179 F.3d

360, 366 (5th Cir. 1999), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1115 (2000);

Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n

, 79 F.3d 1415, 1429 (5th Cir.

1996)(en banc).

Reeder contends the City of Paris “set [him] up to look like

a criminal or [a] mentally ill [person]” in order to discriminate

against him because of his religious beliefs. Because Reeder did

not object to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation that

the City’s F ED

. R. C IV

. P. 12(b)(6) motion be granted, we review only

for plain error. S ee id

. Reeder has not shown plain error,

because Reeder’s conclusional allegations that the City

discriminated against him based on his religion were insufficient

to save the complaint from the motion to dismiss. S ee

Fernandez-M

ontes v. Allied Pilots Ass’n , 987 F.2d 278, 284 (5th

Cir. 1993).

Reeder maintains Judge Superville did not give him a jury

tri al, did not order the Salvation Army to let him stay there,

barred him from going to the public library, denied him due

process, and violated his Eighth Amendment rights by not releasing3

him from the county jail. B y failing to address the dismissal

based on immunity, Reeder has waived any challenge to this ruling.

See Yohey , 985 F.2d at 224-25.

Finally, Reeder asserts that the State of Texas violated his

Fourteenth Amendment rights because divorce vio lates church law.

The State was not named as a defendant, and Reeder’s claims against

it were not the subject of a ruling by the district court.

Accordingly, we do not consider this contention. S ee Vogel v.

Veneman

, 276 F.3d 729, 734 (5th Cir. 2002). For the same reasons,

we do not consider Reeder’s contention con cerning Judge Lovett.

See id.

AFFIRMED