* Pursuant to 5th C I R

. 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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 C IR

. R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-40875

Summary Calendar

BARRY ALEXANDER,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

MARY CHOATE, Sheriff;

BOWIE COUNTY CORRECTIONAL CENTER;

CORPORAL HOUFF,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

(5:96-CV-56)

April 7, 1998

Before JOHNSON, SMITH, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Barry Alexander, formerly incarcerated at Bowie County

Correctional Center, appeals the dismi ssal of his civil rights

complaint. Alexander contends that jail guards violated his

constitutional rights by using force against him on February 25,

1994. Specifically, he contends for the first time on appeal that

(1)prison policy was violate d because his injuries amounted to

punishment and he was not given a hearing before his injuries were1 Plain error revie w gives appellate courts discretion to

correct forfeited errors only when an appellant shows that there is

an error, the error is clear or obvious, and the error affects his

substantial rights. Douglass

, 79 F.3d at 1424 (citing United States

v. Calverly , 37 F.3d 160, 162-64 (5th Cir. 1994)(en banc) ). Even

if these factors are established, this court may decline to

exercise its discretion and correct the error unless the error

“seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of

judicial proceedings.” U nited States v. McDowell

, 109 F.3 d 214,

216 (5th Cir. 1997).

2 inflicted , (2)his right to due process was violated, and (3)his

right to equal protection was violated.

As an initial matter, we must determine the proper standard of

review. In this circuit,

a party’s failure to file written objections to the

proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendation

in a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation

within 10 days after being served with a copy shall

bar that party, except on grou nds of plain error,

from attacking on appeal the unobjected-to proposed

factual findings and legal conclusions accepted by

the district c ourt, provided that the party has

been served with notice that such consequences will

result from a failure to object.

Douglass v. United Servs. Auto Ass’n. , 79 F.3d 1415, 1428-29 (5th

Cir. 1996)(en banc). Though the magistrate judge warned Alexander

of these consequences, Alexander did not file any objections to the

magistrate’s report. For that reason, we review the judgment of

the district court for plain error. 1

After a careful review of the record and the con trolling

authorities, we hold that the district court did not plainly err in

dismissing Alexander’s claims against the defendants named in his

complaint. Alexander’s allegations against Choate and Houff are3

insufficient to establish personal participation in Alexander’s

injuries or to establish that either was responsible for the

practices Alexander protests. S ee Thompkins v. Belt

, 828 F.2d 298,

303-04 (5th Cir. 1987). Similarly, Alexander’s allegations against

BCCC are also insufficient. Alexander contends that BCCC is liable

for his injuries because he was injured inside its facility. Such

allegations fail to state a basis for municipal liability. S ee

Colle v. Brazos County, Texas , 981 F.2d 237, 244 (5th Cir. 1993).

After a careful review of the r ecord and the controlling

authorities, we also find that the district court did not commit

plain error with re gard to the possible liability of Officer

Smallwood and the other guards involved in the incident. S ee

Highlands Ins. Co. v. National Union Fire Ins. Co. , 27 F.3d 1027,

1032 (5th Cir. 1994), cert

. denied , 513 U.S. 1112 (1995).

Finally, Alexander contends, for th e first time on appeal,

that prison officials violated prison policies because he was not

given a hearing b efore he was injured in violation of his due

p rocess and equal protection rights. However, the failure of

prison officials to follow prison rules and regulations does not,

without more, give rise to a constitutional violation. M yers v.

Klevenhagen

, 97 F.3d 91, 94 (5th Cir. 1996). Accordingly, the

district court did not plainly err in dismissing his due process

claim. Alexander offered no factual or legal support for his

sweeping assertion that his rights under the Equal Protection

Clause were violated. For that reason, the district court did not4

plainly err in dismissing his equal protection claim. S ee Brinkman

v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner

, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir.

1987).

AFFIRMED.