* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

August 20, 2007

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-20212

GREGORY D JOHNSON

Plaintiff - Appellant

v.

LT GERALD FOBBS; CAPT ENOS HARRIS; MAJOR EDWARD HOWELL

Defendants - Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:03-CV-3583

Before JONES, Chief Judge, and HIGGINBOTHAM and CLEMENT, Circuit

Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Gregory Johnson appeals the dismissal on summary judgment of his

claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Gerald Fobbs, Enos Harris, and Edward

Howell. For the following reasons, we AFFIRM.

I. FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS

Johnson, an inmate of the Texas prison system, filed a complaint against

several officials of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (“TDCJ”), alleging
No. 05-20212

2

violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Johns alleged the following relevant facts in his

complaint.

Johnson orally complained to another TDCJ employee and Fobbs, the shift

supervisor, that he had been denied access to the prison law library. The

gravitas of Johnson’s complaint was that he was admitted to the law library 15

minutes after some other inmates. Fobbs and another TDCJ employee failed to

resolve Johnson’s concerns because they were engaged in “playful non-security

activity with female officers.” Consequently, Johnson filed a grievance against

Fobbs, the other officer, and two members of the law library staff on April 28,

2003. Fobbs received the grievance from the unit grievance office on May 14,

2003. On May 15, 2003, Fobbs ordered Johnson to meet with him in a security

office. At the meeting, Fobbs demanded that Johnson withdraw his grievance

because it contained lies about Fobbs. When Johnson refused, Fobbs became

irate, handcuffed Johnson, placed him in detention, and filed a disciplinary

report against him, alleging that he created a disturbance and disobeyed an

order when he refused to return the hand restraints that had been put on him

in order to quell the disturbance. 

The next day, Howell processed the disciplinary report. Johnson

ultimately had a disciplinary hearing conducted by Harris. Harris found

Johnson guilty of both offenses and sentenced him to a reduction of 45 days of

his good-time credit and 15 days of solitary confinement. 

Johnson filed administrative appeals, which were denied. He also filed a

grievance against Fobbs for retaliation, which he lost. Johnson then filed suit

against Fobbs, Harris, and Howell. Johnson contends that Fobbs filed the

disciplinary charges against him in retaliation for the April 28 grievance and

that Fobbs conspired with the other defendants to violate TDCJ procedures and

due process in order to cover up Fobbs’s retaliation. 
No. 05-20212

1 Johnson also appeals the dismissal of his claims against Harris and Howell, but he has

failed entirely to address the district court’s basis for dismissing his claims against them.

Consequently, he has waived review of this issue. Cutrera v. Bd. of Supervisors of La. State

Univ., 429 F.3d 108, 113–14 (5th Cir. 2005).

3

The district court granted summary judgment to all defendants. It found

that Johnson had not been deprived of due process during his disciplinary

hearing. It also found that Fobbs’s allegations of retaliation were not supported

by any competent summary judgment evidence. Johnson appeals the dismissal

of his claims against Fobbs.1

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

The district court’s grant of summary judgmentis reviewed de novo. Shell

Offshore, Inc. v. Babbitt, 238 F.3d 622, 627 (5th Cir. 2001). The court applies the

same standard as the district court. Davidson v. Veneman, 317 F.3d 503, 508

(5th Cir. 2003). The district court’s grant of “[s]ummary judgment is appropriate

ifthe record shows ‘that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the

moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.’” Shell Offshore, 238

F.3d at 627 (quoting FED. R. CIV. P. 56(c)). 

III. DISCUSSION

A prison official may not retaliate against or harass an inmate for

exercising his right to file grievances. Woods v. Smith, 60 F.3d 1161, 1164 (5th

Cir. 1995). However, the prisoner must “allege a chronology of events from

which retaliation may plausibly be inferred.” Id. at 1166. “Mere conclusionary

allegations of retaliation will not be enough to withstand a proper motion for

dismissal of the claim.” Jones v. Greninger, 188 F.3d 322, 325 (5th Cir. 1999).

In his motion for summary judgment, Fobbs presented evidence indicating that

Johnson’s alleged chronology of events was implausible. Specifically, Fobbs

submitted an affidavit in which he stated that he filed the disciplinary report

because Johnson “was being disruptive and met the criteria” for the offenses
No. 05-20212

2 Because we do not remand the case, Johnson’s motion for the appointment of a

different judge on remand is moot.

4

charged. He also asserted that the grievance filed by Johnson “was not even

against me. . . . I was simply mentioned in it as a person Mr. Johnson attempted

to try to informally resolve the situation with.” Fobbs also notes that the

grievance was filed two weeks before he filed his disciplinary report. The

existence of “a legitimate prison disciplinary report . . . is probative and potent

summary judgment evidence, as [is] evidence of the number, nature, and

disposition of prior retaliation complaints by the inmate.” Woods, 60 F.3d at

1166.

The district court noted that while Johnson asserts that the charges

against him are “false,” he has never directly denied creating a disturbance or

refusing to return the hand restraints to Fobbs. Johnson ultimately lost his

disciplinary hearing. The district court also pointed out that Johnson filed an

earlier retaliation claim that failed to survive summary judgment. 

Though Johnson alleges that Fobbs did not know about the report until

May 14, he has offered no competent summary judgment evidence that would

indicate the truth of this allegation. His assertions offered to rebut the motion

for summary judgment were entirely conclusory, and he has repeated the same

conclusory assertions on appeal. 

IV. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.2