United States Court of Appeals 

for the Fifth Circuit 

No. 21-30172 

Summary Calendar 

Dennis Ray Davis, Jr., 

Plaintiff—Appellant, 

versus

Police Department of Shreveport; District Attorneys 

Office Caddo Parish; Sheriffs Office of Caddo Parish; 

State of Louisiana; City of Shreveport; Jousha 

Mayfiled; James E. Stewart, Jr.; Casey Jones; Steve 

Pator; Mekisha Creal; Ramona Emanuel; Brady D. 

O’Callaghan; Ronald J. Mittico; Wilbert Payor; Laura 

Fulco; Cherly Stills; Record Department Caddo 

Correctional Center; Yolanda; Carlos Prudhomme; 

Antona Florence; Public Service Commission Caddo 

Parish; Foster Campbell; Louisiana State Bar 

Association; Judiciary Commissioner; Office of 

Disciplinary Counsel, 

Defendants—Appellees. 

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Western District of Louisiana 

USDC No. 5:17-CV-531 

Before Davis, Graves, and Higginson, Circuit Judges.

United States Court of Appeals 

Fifth Circuit 

FILED 

July 21, 2022 

Lyle W. Cayce 

Clerk 

Case: 21-30172 Document: 00516401824 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/21/2022
No. 21-30172 

2 

Per Curiam:*

Dennis Ray Davis, Jr., now Louisiana prisoner # 469947, appeals the 

dismissal of his civil action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) as frivolous and 

for failure to state a claim. On appeal, Davis, a sanctioned litigant who paid 

the filing fee in this court, challenges the denial of bail when he was a pretrial 

detainee, arguing that the claim does not challenge a criminal judgment and 

is not barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), typographical and 

booking errors resulted in the denial of bail, and he was falsely imprisoned 

due to the denial of bail. Davis contends that the following were involved in 

denying him bail: the Caddo Parish Sheriff’s Office; the Record Department 

of the Caddo Parish Correctional Center; staff at the Caddo Parish 

Correctional Center; Yolanda Williams; Cherly Stills; and Sheriff Steve 

Prator. Additionally, Davis contends that the district court erred in referring 

his case to a magistrate judge without his consent, and he moves for the 

appointment of counsel. 

Although the district court did not dismiss the foregoing denial of bail 

and false imprisonment claim as malicious, we may affirm on any basis 

supported by the record. See Sojourner T v. Edwards, 974 F.2d 27, 30 (5th 

Cir. 1992). Because the claim repeats the same factual allegations presented 

in Davis’s earlier cases, it warranted dismissal as malicious, and we affirm on 

that basis. See Pittman v. Moore, 980 F.2d 994, 995 (5th Cir. 1993); Bailey v. 

Johnson, 846 F.2d 1019, 1021 (5th Cir. 1988); § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i); see also 

Davis v. Wilson, No. 5:17-CV-1269, 2021 WL 1619348 (W.D. La. Apr. 26, 

2021) (unpublished); Davis v. Wyche, No. 5:18-CV-9, 2018 WL 2946399 

(W.D. La. June 12, 2018) (unpublished); Davis v. Wyche, No. 5:17-CV-1230, 

2017 WL 6503992 (W.D. La. Dec. 18, 2017) (unpublished). 

*

 Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4. 

Case: 21-30172 Document: 00516401824 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/21/2022
No. 21-30172 

3 

Next, it is unavailing for Davis to challenge the district court’s referral 

of the case to the magistrate judge for a report and recommendation. Such a 

delegation, as well as the magistrate judge’s issuance of findings and 

recommendations, is authorized under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), which does not 

require the consent of the parties. Last, by Davis’s failure to brief, all of his 

remaining claims are abandoned. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 

(5th Cir. 1993). 

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED as 

modified. Davis’s motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED. We 

reiterate that Davis is barred under § 1915(g) from proceeding in forma 

pauperis in any civil action or appeal filed while he is incarcerated or detained 

in any facility unless he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. 

See § 1915(g); see also Davis v. Whyce, 763 F. App’x 348, 349 (5th Cir. 2019); 

Davis v. Comm’r Caddo Parish, 777 F. App’x 775, 776 (5th Cir. 2019). 

Further, Davis is WARNED that future repetitive filings in this court or any 

court subject to this court’s jurisdiction may subject him to sanctions, which 

may include dismissal, monetary sanctions, and restrictions on his ability to 

file pleadings. 

Case: 21-30172 Document: 00516401824 Page: 3 Date Filed: 07/21/2022