* Local Rule 47.5 provides: "The publication of opinions

that have no precedential value and merely decide particular

cases on the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes

needless expense on the public and burdens on the legal

profession." Pursuant to that Rule, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________

No. 95-40377 

Conference Calendar

__________________

WILLIE D. BEASLEY,

 Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

JIMMY ALFORD, Warden, Michael Unit;

TEXAS BOARD OF PARDONS AND PAROLE;

MICHAEL MOORE, Regional Director;

JAMES COLLINS; Michael Unit Medical Dep't,

 Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 6:94-CV-876

- - - - - - - - - -

(October 19, 1995)

Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, and REAVLEY and SMITH, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Willie D. Beasley challenges the magistrate judge's

dismissal of his suit as frivolous. A complaint filed IFP can be

dismissed by the court sua sponte if the complaint is frivolous. 

28 U.S.C. § 1915(d). A complaint is "`frivolous where it lacks

an arguable basis either in law or in fact.'" Denton v.
No. 95-40377

-2-

Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 31 (1992) (quoting Neitzke v. Williams,

490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989)). This court reviews a § 1915(d)

dismissal for abuse of discretion. Denton, 504 U.S. at 33.

Beasley argues that he was wrongly denied protective safekeeping status. To establish a failure-to-protect claim under

the Eighth Amendment, a prisoner must show that prison officials

were deliberately indifferent to his need for protection. Wilson

v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 302-03 (1991). A prison official acts

with deliberate indifference under the Eighth Amendment "only if

he knows that inmates face a substantial risk of serious harm and

[he] disregards that risk by failing to take reasonable measures

to abate it." Farmer v. Brennan, 114 S. Ct. 1970, 1984 (1994). 

Beasley did not allege any facts tending to show that prison

officials were deliberately indifferent to his safety. His

allegation that he required protection because of his

homosexuality does not establish that he required removal from

the general population. The magistrate judge noted that the

Bureau of Classifications found that Beasley was not entitled to

safe-keeping because Beasley had a history of aggressive sexual

misconduct and was of a large build. Beasley has not challenged

this finding or otherwise shown any facts that would indicate

that he suffered a substantial risk of harm of which prison

officials were aware.

Beasley's allegation that prison guards backed out of the

room while Beasley was being beaten by inmate Wilson suggests

that these corrections officers may have failed to protect

Beasley; nevertheless, Beasley sued the Classification Board, has
No. 95-40377

-3-

 

**Although we liberally construes pro se briefs, see Haines

v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972), we require arguments to be

briefed in order to be preserved. Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d

222, 225 (5th Cir. 1993). Claims not adequately argued in the

body of the brief are deemed abandoned on appeal. Id. at 224-25.

not alleged facts that the Board was aware of any threat posed by

inmate Wilson or any other inmate, and has abandoned any

contentions regarding these guards by not raising them on

appeal.**

Beasley repeats his factual allegations from the court below

regarding the late notice of the unfavorable outcome of his

meeting with the Board of Pardons and Paroles. Under Heck v.

Humphrey, 114 S. Ct. 2364, 2372-73 (1994), a § 1983 plaintiff

must prove that his conviction or sentence has been reversed on

direct appeal, expunged by executive order, declared invalid by

an authorized state tribunal, or called into question by a

federal court's issuance of a writ of habeas corpus in order to

recover damages for an allegedly unconstitutional imprisonment. 

Id. at 2372. Otherwise, such a claim for damages is not

cognizable under § 1983 and must be dismissed. Id. at 2373. An

action attacking the validity of a parole or probation revocation

proceeding calls into question the fact and duration of

confinement and, thus, must meet the requirements of Heck. 

Cotton v. Texas Dep't Criminal Justice, No. 94-10532 (5th Cir.

Aug. 26, 1994) (unpublished) (parole); Jackson v. Vannoy, 49 F.3d

175, 177 (5th Cir.) (probation revocation, citing Cotton), cert.

denied, 64 U.S.L.W. 3243 (U.S. 1995). Thus, Beasley's claims

against the Board of Pardons and Paroles were properly dismissed

by the magistrate judge.
No. 95-40377

-4-

Beasley argues that the lack of drinking fountains and the

lack of privacy in the dormitory units violates Ruiz v. Estelle,

503 F. Supp. 1265 (S.D. Tex. 1980), aff'd in part and vacated in

part, 679 F.2d 1115, amended in part and vacated in part, 688

F.2d 266 (5th Cir. 1982), cert. denied, 460 U.S. 1042 (1983). 

Violations of the Ruiz decree, without more, are not cognizable

in a § 1983 cause of action. Green v. McKaskle, 788 F.2d 1116,

1122 (5th Cir. 1986).

Finally, Beasley alleges that, on August 19, 1994, he

complained of congestion and wheezing due to asthma to the shift

supervisor, Sergeant English, that English reported the condition

to the medical department, and that the medical department

reported that Beasley had no asthma problems in his records. 

This factual scenario is presented for the first time on appeal. 

"[I]ssues raised for the first time on appeal are not reviewable

by this court unless they involve purely legal questions and

failure to consider them would result in manifest injustice." 

Varnado v. Lynaugh, 920 F.2d 320, 321 (5th Cir. 1991) (internal

quotations and citation omitted). These issues involve factual

questions that were not addressed by the magistrate judge;

therefore, they are not subject to review for the first time on

appeal. Beasley's other allegations below regarding his medical

treatment are abandoned as they have not been brought before the

court.

Beasley has not shown that the dismissal for frivolousness

was an abuse of discretion. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d); Booker v.

Koonce 2 F.3d 114, 115 (5th Cir. 1993). Beasley's contentions on
No. 95-40377

-5-

appeal are wholly without merit, rendering the appeal frivolous. 

See Coghlan v. Starkey, 852 F.2d 806, 811 (5th Cir. 1988). This

appeal is DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.