UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-40723

Summary Calendar

RICHARD WAYNE COLLINS,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

GARY L. JOHNSON, Director, Texas Department

of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division; JOSEPH

KEITH PRICE, Warden, Coffield Unit; BILL LAYTON,

Hospital Administrator; THOMAS CARROLL FORD,

Doctor, Coffield Unit; P. PURSCHE, Nurse, Coffield Unit;

UNIDENTIFIED UPSHAW, Assistant Warden, Coffield

Unit; JAMES A. SHAW, JR., Director, Texas Department

of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division; O.D. HUBBTZ,

Deputy Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice,

Institutional Division; MICAH N. GROS, Co. 3, Coffield

Unit; PAUL GRIFFEY, Co. 3, Coffield Unit; UNKNOWN

COUNSEL SUB., Coffield Unit; BERNIE L. BUSH, Cpt.,

Coffield Unit; B. BLANTON, Coffield Unit; C. WALLIS,

Counsel Sub., Coffield Unit; REGIONAL DIRECTOR,

Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division;

UNKNOWN DEFENDANT, Coffield Unit; PATRICK K.

VEST, Lt., Coffield Unit; STEVEN W. WILLIAMS, Sgt.,

Coffield Unit; CHAD E. KELLEY, Co. 3, Coffield Unit;

MICKEY L. DEAN, Co. 3, Coffield Unit; SHANE D.

FARMER, Co. 3, Coffield Unit; TAMMY R. HAM, Co. 3,

Coffield Unit; SABAS SANCHEZ, Co. 3, Coffield Unit;

A. CARLILE, Co. 3, Coffield Unit; UNKNOWN DEFENDANT,

Cpt., Coffield Unit; ALL DEFENDANTS,

Defendants-Appellees.* 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.

2

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Eastern District of Texas

(6:96-CV-1104)

January 30, 1998

Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, HIGGINBOTHAM and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

POLITZ, Chief Judge: *

Richard Wayne Collins, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis

, appeals the

28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) & (ii) dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights

lawsuit as frivolous and for failure to state a claim. For the reasons assigned, we

affirm.

Background

Colli ns, a Texas state prisoner, suffers from asthma and other respiratory

problems. He claims that he was forced to work in an environment filled with dust,

pollen, mold, and fungus which exacerba ted his condition. Collins filed a civil

rights complaint alleging that the director of the Texas Department of Criminal

Justice, Institutional Division, and numerou s officials of the Coffield Unit were

deliberately indiffe rent to his serious medical needs, subjected him to cruel and

unusual punishment, and retaliated against him by, inter alia

, assigning him to work1 Spears v. McCotter , 766 F.2d 179 (5th Cir. 1985).

2 Collins wrote to the Department of Justice asking for assistance with the alleged civil

rights violations due to the dusty working conditions. He allegedly sent copies of grievance

reports, sworn witness statements, and his own chronicle of the working conditions. Collins

alleges that this evidence was necessary to prove that he has stated a claim.

3 Douglass v. United Servs. Auto Ass’n , 79 F.3d 1415 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc).

3 i n conditions inconsistent with his medical restrictions, failing to diagn ose other

medical conditions, denying him immediate access to medical car e, denying

grievances, and filing false disciplinary charges.

The magistrate judge conducted a Spears 1 hearing. After reviewing Collins’

objections and conducting a de novo review, the district court adopted the

magistrate judge’s report and dismissed Collins’ compla i nt with prejudice as

frivolous and for failure to state a claim.

Analysis

For the first time on appeal, Collins contends that the district court erred by

not ordering the United States Department of Justice to deliver certain evidence he

claims he has for the court’s review; 2 by dismissing his complaint with prejudice;

and failing to construe his motion for extension of time to amend his complaint as

either a motion to postpone proceedings or as a motion for voluntary dismissal. We

review contentions not raised in the district court only for plain error. 3 We find no

error, plain or otherwise, in the issues raised by Collins. His appeal is without4

arguable merit and is frivolous.

Collins is cautioned that any future frivolous appeals filed by him or on his

behalf will invite the imposition of the full panoply of sanctions, including the

requiring of prior court approval before an appeal may be filed.

JUDGMENT AFFIRMED; SANCTIONS CAUTION ISSUED.