* 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR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. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-40245 Summary Calendar

RAUL LIRA,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

KERRY BIRDWELL, School Principal; BILLIE FITTS, Vocational Instructor;
J. BULLOCK, School Counselor; ROBERT HERRERA, Assistant Warden, Michael Unit;

MIKE MORROW, Superintendent,

Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 6:99-CV-590

- - - - - - - - - - September 28, 2000

Before SMITH, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Raul Lira appeals the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil

rights complaint, which was dismissed as frivolous and for failure

to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. See 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915A(b). Lira alleged that the defendants wrongfully removed

him from his prison job, denied him admission to a vocationalNo. 00-40245

-2-

training program, and denied him parole eligibility. Lira argues

that the district court used the wrong legal standard. He asserts

that his claims arise under the Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses rather than under the Eighth

Amendment. He reasserts that his parole eligibility has been

adversely affecte d because the defendants denied him access to

vocational training.

Lira has filed a motion to supplement the record. This motion

is DENIED. S ee United States v. Flores

, 887 F.2d 543, 546 (5th

Cir. 1989). In his § 1983 complaint, Lira alleged that he was

wrongfully terminated from prison employment. He fails to argue

the issue in his brief on appeal; therefore, the claim is

abandoned. S ee Yohey v. Collins

, 985 F.2 d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir.

1993). In the Eighth Amendment context, this court has held that

the state has no constituti onal obligation to provide basic

educational or vocational training to prisoners. B eck v. Lynaugh

,

842 F.2d 759, 762 (5th Cir. 1988); Newman v. Alabama

, 559 F.2d 283,

292 (5th Cir. 1977). Although Lira argues that the district court

should have addressed this claim under the Equal Protection and Due

Process Clauses, he has failed to sta te a claim for relief under

the Fourteenth Amendment. Lira’s complaint failed to state an

equal protection claim, because he did not allege that he was

treated differently from similarly situated prisoners or that the

defendants interfered with a fundamental right. S ee Hatten v.

Rains , 854 F.2d 687, 690 (5th Cir. 1988); Brennan v. Stewart , 834

F.2d 1248, 1257 (5th Cir. 1988). Lira also has failed to state a

due process claim relating to his vocational training and itsNo. 00-40245

-3-

affect on parole eligibility. S ee Malchi v. Thaler

, 211 F.3d 953,

957 ( 5th Cir. 2000)(holding that Texas prisoners have no

constitutional expectancy of parole suff i cient to support due

process claim); Johnson v. Rodriguez , 110 F.3d 299, 308 (5th Cir.

1997)(holding that Texas prisoners do not have a protected liberty

interest in parole). Accordingly, the judgment is AFFIRMED.

The dismissal counts as a strike against Lira for purposes of

28 U.S.C. § 1915. S ee Adepegba v. Hammons

, 103 F.3d 383, 387 (5th

Cir. 1996). If Lira accumulates three strikes, he may not proceed

in forma pauperis in any civil action or appeal filed while he is

incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he is in imminent

dange r of serious physical injury. S ee § 1915(g). Lira is cautioned to review any pending appeals to ensure that they do not

raise frivolous issues.

AFFIRMED; MOTION DENIED; SANCTIONS WARNING ISSUED.