*

Pursuant to 5 T H 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR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. 97-10198 Summary Calendar

WILLIAM STEVE MCGREW, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

GEORGE W. BUSH, Governor of Texas; TEXAS BOARD OF
PARDON & PAROLES, CHIEF
EXECUTIVE DIRECTORS; TEXAS DEP’T OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION, Defendants-Appellees.

WILLIAM STEVE MCGREW, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

AMY BROOME, Wichita County District Attorney; JOHN HOGAN, Judge, County Court
of Law No. 1; JANICE RALSTON SONS, Judge, Justice of the

Peace; WF CITY ATTORNEY; JUDGE GILLEN, Municipal
Court, Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 7:96-CV-56-X C/W
No. 7:96-CV-57-X

- - - - - - - - - - December 17, 1997 Before DUHÉ, DeMOSS and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *No. 97-10198
-2-

William Steve McGrew, Texas state prisoner # 374537, argues

that the district court abused its discretion in consolidating his

two civil rights complaints. The cases involved common questions

of law and fact and their disposition in one proceeding served the

interest of judicial economy. The district court did not abuse its

discretion in consolida ting the actions. S ee Dillard v. Merrill

Lynch, Pierce, Genner & Smith, Inc.

, 961 F.2d 1148, 1161 (5th Cir.

1992).

McGrew argues that the district court abused its discretion in

referring the cases to the magistrate judge for the preparation of

findings and a recommendation. The district court properly

referred the cases to the magistrate judge for a recommendation

concerning whether the acti o ns should be dismissed for

frivolousness. S ee 28 U.S.C. § 636(b); Spears v. McCotter

, 766

F.2d 179, 180 (5th Cir. 1985).

McGrew argues that the district court abused its discretion in

dismissing his complain t as frivolous because the allegations

reflect that the defendants’ outrageous conduct resul ted in the

revocation of his parole and his false imprisonment.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing

the complaints under Heck v. Humphrey

, 114 S. Ct. 2364, 2372 (1994)

because McGrew has not demonstrated that the revocation of his

p arole has been reversed, invalidated, or otherwise set aside.

Therefore, any 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint for damages that McGrewNo. 97-10198
-3-

may have has not yet accrued. The district court properly

dismissed the complaints as frivolous.

McGrew’s appeal is without argu able merit and is frivolous.

See Howard v. King

, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983). Because

the appeal is frivolous, it is DISMISSED. S e e 5th Cir. R. 42.2.

McGrew is cautioned that any additional frivolous appeals filed by

him or on his behalf will invite the imposition of sanctions. To

avoid sanctions, McGrew should review any pending appeals to ensure

that they do not raise arguments that are frivolous.

McGrew’s motion for the appointment of counsel is DENIED. S ee

Ulmer v. Chancellor , 691 F.2d 209, 212 (5th Cir. 1982). McGrew’s

motions to su pplement the record and for the imposition of

sanctions against the appellees are also DENIED.

APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTION WARNING GIVEN.