* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-60417

JIMMY RAY TURNER

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

EDDIE BOWEN; RICHARD WEBB; DAVID GARNER; STEVEN HAYNE;

ROBERT EVANS; MISSISSIPPI CRIME LABORATORY; TOMMY SCOTT;

RAYMOND DELK; KEITH BOUNDS; CHARLIE CRUMPTON; KIM

GARNER-ULMER; ANTHONY GRAYSON

Defendants-Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Southern District of Mississippi 

USDC No. 3:06-CV-576

Before GARWOOD, GARZA, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Jimmy Ray Turner, Mississippi prisoner # K0837, appeals the district

court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1985 civil rights complaint against various

individuals and the Mississippi Crime laboratory for conspiracy to interfere with

his civil rights.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

October 30, 2007

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 07-60417

2

Turner argues that the district court erred in determining that he failed

to state a race- or class-based basis for the conspiracy, and he contends that the

conspiracy was based on the animus of the victim’s powerful, influential, and

political family. However, Turner’s alleged basis for the conspiracy does not

satisfy the applicable provisions of section 1985 and therefore fails to state a

cause of action. See Daigle v. Gulf State Utils. Co. Local Union No. 2286, 794

F.2d 974, 978-79 (5th Cir. 1986).

Although Turner failed to state a claim under section 1985, the district

court did not err by not construing Turner's claim as a section 1983 action.

Turner repeatedly expressly stated in his filings that he did not want his current

claim construed as a section 1983 action. Turner in this connection at least once

acknowledged that his prior section 1983 claim, against one of the defendants

named in this proceeding, was dismissed and that he wanted to avoid a similar

outcome in this case. Turner v. Hayne, No. 3:05-CV-197-WHB-AGN, 2005 WL

1595661, at *1 (S.D. Miss. Jul. 1, 2005) (holding that Turner's section 1983 suit

against Dr. Steven Hayne was precluded by the Supreme Court decision in Heck

v. Humphrey, 114 S.Ct. 2364 (1994)). So, while pro se litigants' pleadings should

be construed liberally, the district court did not err by declining to construe

Turner's section 1985 claim as a claim under section 1983 both because a section

1983 action would likely have been barred by Heck v. Humphrey and because

Turner repeatedly expressly insisted that he was not bringing a section 1983

action.

Liberally construed, Turner’s brief also contends that he was prevented by

the magistrate judge and the district court from amending his complaint.

However, Turner has not alleged that he expressly requested leave to amend his

complaint, and, in any event, Turner has not shown that any attempt to

amendment to his complaint would not have been futile. see U.S. ex rel. Willard

v. Humana Health Plan of Tex. Inc., 336 F.3d 375, 387 (5th Cir. 2003).
No. 07-60417

3

Turner further argues that the district court erred in not allowing him to

file objections to its final judgment, but there is no right to file objections to a

final judgment. Rule 59 provides litigants an opportunity to alter or amend a

judgment through a motion filed within ten days of the judgment’s entry. FED.

R. CIV.PRO.59(e). Turner's allegation that his “Motion Invoking Plaintiff's Civil

Rights . . .” should have been treated as a Rule 59 motion is undercut by the fact

that it does not mention or refer to the district court's May 1, 2007 judgment

dismissing Turner's complaint or any other ruling of the district court and it

does not seek to alter any such ruling. Turner's allegation that his motion was

sent on May 2, 2007 also undermines his argument because, given his being

incarcerated, it would have been highly unlikely that he could have learnt about

and responded to the judgment by the following day. For these reasons, we

conclude that Turner's motion was not seeking to alter or amend the district

court judgment, and therefore, it was not a Rule 59 motion.

For the foregoing reasons, the district court’s dismissal of Turner’s section

1985 claims is

AFFIRMED.