* 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that this opinion should not be published.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. 95-40441 

Conference Calendar

__________________

JAMES HENRY JOHNSON,

 Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

UNIDENTIFIED QUARTERMAN, Warden;

JAMES A. COLLINS, DIRECTOR, TEXAS

DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE,

INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION; BILL LAYTON, 

Administrator; Steven G. KASPARIAN,

 Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 6:94-CV-865

- - - - - - - - - -

August 22, 1995

Before KING, JOLLY, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

James Henry Johnson appeals the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983 suit in which he alleged that prison officials failed to

protect him from attacks by other inmates and failed to provide

adequate medical care. An in forma pauperis complaint may be
No. 95-40441

-2-

dismissed as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) if it has

no arguable basis in law or in fact. Booker v. Koonce, 2 F.3d

114, 115 (5th Cir. 1993). This court reviews a § 1915(d)

dismissal under the abuse-of-discretion standard. Id.

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). 

Johnson did not allege any facts tending to show that prison

officials were deliberately indifferent to his safety. On the

contrary, after being warned by an inmate of a possible attack on

Johnson, the officer escorting Johnson from his cell brought a

shield for their protection. Although the officer was unable to

prevent the August 23, 1994, attack, he responded by trying to

protect Johnson. Nor do Johnson's allegations that he has been

attacked by other inmates after that date indicate deliberate

indifference on the part of prison officials. 

As to his denial-of-medical care claim, Johnson fails to

raise this issue in his brief on appeal. Although this court

liberally construes pro se briefs, see Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S.

519, 520 (1972), this court requires arguments to be briefed in

order to be preserved. Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 225 (5th
No. 95-40441

-3-

Cir. 1993). Claims not adequately argued in the body of the

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

Johnson's brief is wholly without merit, rendering the

appeal frivolous. See Coghlan v. Starkey, 852 F.2d 806, 811 (5th

Cir. 1988). This appeal is dismissed as such. See 5th Cir. 

Rule 42.2. 

This court, in two prior cases, expressly warned Johnson of

the possibility of sanctions if he continued to file frivolous

appeals. Because Johnson failed to withdraw this appeal despite

being twice warned, this court chooses to exercise its

"discretionary power" pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), to render

judgment for costs at the end of the action. See Moore v.

McDonald, 30 F.3d 616, 621 (5th Cir. 1994). Accordingly, the

costs of this appeal, $105, are taxed against Johnson. No new

filings by or on behalf of Johnson will be accepted by the Clerk

of Court without the express written consent of a judge of this

court. 

Johnson's "motion for amended brief" is DENIED.

APPEAL DISMISSED.