* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published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 Local Rule 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_________________________

No. 95-60546

(Summary Calendar)

_________________________

JAMES M. LYLE, IV, et al.

Plaint iffs

JAMES M. LYLE, IV

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

EDDIE LUCAS, Commissioner,

Mississippi Department of Corrections

Defendant-Appellee.

____________________________________________________

Appeal from United States District Court

for the Southern District of Mississippi

(3:94CV179BS)

__________________________________________________

July 15, 1996

Before JOLLY, JONES and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

James M. Lyle, IV, and nine other prisoners originally housed in the Central Mississippi

Correctio n al Facility (CMCF) filed a civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Eddie

Lucas, Commissioner of the Mississippi Department of Corrections. (MDOC). The plaintiffs assert2

that the district court denied them the right to cross-examine th e defendant and his witnesses by

granting the defendant’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(c) motion at the end of their case-in-chief at the non-jury

t rial. The plaintiffs also assert that although they were allowed to testify, the magistrat e judge

allowed them to present only one other witness, not the three additional witnesses that they wished

to call. As the plaintiffs have not shown that any relevant evidence supporting their allegations was

excluded, the argument concerning the procedural aspect of granting the Rule 52(c) motion after the

case-in-chief has no merit.

The plaint iffs contend that the district court erred in its application of Sandin v. Conner

, 515

U.S. __, 132, 115 S. Ct. 2293, 132 L. Ed. 2d 418 (1995) to their complaint. The district court did

not err in concluding that the temporary denial of privileges given to other inmates in other prisons

or other sections of the same prison is not an atypical or significant hardship, and that the plaintiffs

did not have a protected liberty interest in being transferred to other prisons within 10 to 14 days of

arriving at CMCF. See Sandin , 132 L. Ed. 2d at 429-30, 115 S. Ct. at 2297, 2300; P ichardo v.

Kinker

, 73 F.3d 612, 613 (confining prisoner to segregation for gang membership not violative of due

process)(5th Cir. 1996).

The plaint iffs

have not connected defendant Lucas to any alleged constitutional violation

resulting from their incarceration at CMCF. They merely argue that Lucas knew that prisoners were

being detained at CMCF for long periods pending transfer to other MDOC institutions. Thus, the

plaint iffs have identified no clear error in the district court’s finding that there was no e vidence of

Lucas’s personal involvement in any alleged constitutional violation. B aski n v. Parker , 602 F.2d

1205, 1207-08 (5th Cir. 1979).3

Lyle, for the first time on appeal, asserts that the district court did not address his claims of

harassment and retaliation resulting from filing this case. As Lyle has not shown any error, much less

plain error, in the district court’s failure to address an issue not part of the lawsuit before it, this court

need not review this issue. S ee Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n

, No. 95-50007, 1996 WL

140173 at *11-13 (5th Cir. Mar. 28, 1996)(en banc).

AFFIRMED