*

Pursuant to the 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this

opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under limited

circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

March 27, 2006

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-60335

Summary Calendar

CHARLIE TAYLOR,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

ETHEL CARLIZE, Disciplinary Chairperson; HENRY MAXWELL, Captain;

TOMMY ROSS, Warden - Deputy; MICHAEL A. WILSON, Superintendent;

CHRISTOPHER EPPS, Commissioner; JEAN SANDERS JOHNSON, Case Worker;

CHARLES BAILEY, Associate Warden - Classification Director; LINDA

THOMPSON, Commanding Officer IV; REBECCA BLOUNT, Lieutenant;

MATILDA BROWN, Commanding Officer IV; RICHARD PENNINGTON, Law

Library Director; EARNEST LEE, Warden; S. GREEN, Supervisor 29 -

Kitchen, 

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 4:04-CV-24 

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Charlie Taylor, Mississippi prisoner # R6798, appeals the

district court’s dismissal of his pro se civil rights compliant

against various Mississippi Department of Corrections officials for
1

See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. A dismissal under § 1915A is reviewed de novo.

Ruiz v. United States, 160 F.3d 273, 275 (5th Cir. 1998).

2

See 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). This court reviews de novo a dismissal under

§ 1997e(a). Days v. Johnson, 322 F.3d 863, 866 (5th Cir. 2003).

3

Meachum v. Fano, 427 U.S. 215, 225 (1976) (stating that the Due Process

clause of the Fourteenth Amendment does not endow a prisoner with a protected

liberty interest in the location of his confinement); Jackson v. Cain, 864 F.2d

1235, 1250 (5th Cir 1989) (stating that prison inmates have no constitutionally

protected liberty interest in their job assignments).

4

See Sojouner T v. Edwards, 974 F.2d 27, 30 (5th Cir. 1992) (stating that

this Court may affirm the district court’s judgment on any ground supported by

the record).

2

failure to state a claim1and for failure to exhaust administrative

remedies.2

Taylor argues on appeal that he exhausted his administrative

remedies as to all of the claims alleged in his complaint. The

record indicates that Taylor exhausted his challenge to being

housed in unit 29-L and to his reclassification as a field worker.

However, this claim lacks merit because Taylor does not have a

liberty interest in his work or housing assignment.3Accordingly,

the district court did not err in dismissing the claim.4

Taylor argues that the rules violation report (RVR), received

for hanging a sheet in front of himself while using the bathroom,

was not based on any prison rule; he contends that he “has the

liberty right to not have false evidence intentionally presented

against him in official proceedings by those acting under color of

law.” However, since Taylor does not assert that he was restrained

in any way due to this RVR and since he concedes that he was found
5

See Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 484 (1995). 

6

See Turner v. Safely, 482 U.S. 78, 89 (1987).

7

See Harris v. Hegmann, 198 F.3d 153, 156 (5th Cir. 1999).

8

See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A; see also Carr v. Dvorin, 171 F.3d 115, 116 (2d

Cir. 1999) (per curiam) (noting that § 1915A “clearly does not require that

process be served...before dismissal”).

9

See Leverette v. Louisville Ladder Co., 183 F.3d 339, 342 (5th Cir.

1999) (per curiam) (stating that this “Court will not allow a party to raise an

issue for the first time on appeal merely because a party believes that he might

prevail if given the opportunity to try a case again on a different theory”).

3

not guilty at a hearing concerning the RVR, he has not asserted a

constitutional deprivation.5Furthermore, a rule preventing an

inmate from obscuring prison officials’ view is “reasonably related

to legitimate penological interests.”6Accordingly, the district

court did not err in dismissing Taylor’s claim for failure to state

a claim upon which relief could be granted.7

Taylor argues that the district court erred in dismissing his

complaint before summonses were served on the defendants. However,

service is not required before dismissal.8

Taylor asserts for the first time on appeal that his housing

in segregated confinement amounted to cruel and unusual punishment,

rendered in retaliation for his filing of grievances against prison

officials. However, we need not consider issues raised for the

first time on appeal.9

AFFIRMED.