* 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that this opinion should not be published.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. 95-50486

Summary Calendar

__________________

SYNNACHIA McQUEEN,

 Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

CAROL S. VANCE, Chairman; JAMES A. COLLINS,

DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE,

INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION; JACK M. GARNER, Warden;

RICHARD HARVEY, Officer; CLARENCE BAKER, CO3,

 Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. W-94-CV-194

- - - - - - - - - -

September 20, 1995

Before KING, SMITH and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Synnachia McQueen's motion for leave to proceed in forma

pauperis (IFP) on appeal is DENIED.

A district court "has broad discretion in deciding whether

to order a transfer." Caldwell v. Palmetto State Sav. Bank, 811

F.2d 916, 919 (5th Cir. 1987); 28 U.S.C. §§ 1404(a), 1406(a). 

The magistrate judge in the Austin Division found that McQueen
No. 95-50486

-2-

was incarcerated and allegedly was deprived of his property in

Coryell County, Texas, a finding McQueen does not challenge. 

Coryell County is in the Waco Division. 28 U.S.C. § 124(d)(2). 

The district court in the Austin Division did not abuse its

discretion by transferring McQueen's case to the Waco Division.

McQueen contends that he was deprived of his headphones and

sweatshirt without due process of law. He argues that because

the deprivation occurred pursuant to TDCJ's contraband and

clothes-hanging policies he should have received a predeprivation

hearing. McQueen also argues that TDCJ's contraband policy

violates due process because it allows deprivation without a

predeprivation hearing.

Deprivation of constitutionally protected interests pursuant

to established state policy may violate due process despite the

availability of post-deprivation remedies. Matthias v. Bingley,

906 F.2d 1047, 1056 (5th Cir.), modified in part on other

grounds, 915 F.2d 946 (5th Cir. 1990). However, "[t]he necessity

for quick action by the state coupled with an adequate post

deprivation hearing [may] obviate[] the need for a predeprivation

hearing." Beck v. Lynaugh, 842 F.2d 759, 761 (5th Cir. 1988).

Prison security demands require that prison officials be

able to deprive inmates of property believed to be contraband

without holding a pre-deprivation hearing. Prison officials

therefore may satisfy the demands of due process with adequate

post-deprivation proceedings. TDCJ's post-deprivation grievance

procedures are adequate to satisfy the Due Process Clause. 

McBride v. Collins, No. 93-7468, slip op. at 3 (5th Cir. Jan. 19,
No. 95-50486

-3-

1994)(unpublished).

Additionally, TDCJ prohibits prisoners from hanging their

clothing in a manner that blocks an officer's view of any area. 

Prisoners are proscribed from hanging clothing on windows, on

walls, or in front of vents. TDCJ-ID, INMATE ORIENTATION HANDBOOK

§ III(C)(4)(1990). Again, prison officials must be able to take

immediate action to remedy violations of this rule, as violation

of the rule could implicate security concerns. See Beck, 842

F.2d at 761. Post-deprivation remedies therefore are adequate to

satisfy due process.

Moreover, in addition to prison grievances, McQueen could

have pursued a state-law conversion action. See Murphy v.

Collins, 26 F.3d 541, 543 (5th Cir. 1994). McQueen's procedural

due process contention is unavailing.

Assuming that McQueen asserted his substantive due process

contention in timely fashion in the district court, see McGruder

v. Phelps, 608 F.2d 1023, 1025 (5th Cir. 1979); cf. United States

v. Armstrong, 951 F.2d 626, 630 (5th Cir. 1992), his contention

is unavailing. McQueen's allegations give rise to a procedural,

not a substantive, due process contention. See Griffith v.

Johnson, 899 F.2d 1427, 1435 (5th Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 498

U.S. 1040 (1991).

"Any justice, judge, or magistrate of the United States

shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his

impartiality might reasonably be questioned." 28 U.S.C. § 455;

see Levitt v. Univ. of Texas at El Paso, 847 F.2d 221, 225-26

(5th Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 984 (1988). Adverse rulings
No. 95-50486

-4-

alone do not call into question a district judge's impartiality. 

Liteky v. United States, 114 S. Ct. 1147, 1157-58 (1994). 

McQueen's contention that a series of rulings by the district

judge and magistrate judge demonstrates prejudice and warrants

recusal therefore is unavailing. Additionally, McQueen's general

allegations of ex parte communication and socializing by the

magistrate judge, which are based on hearsay and on which McQueen

does not elaborate, are insufficient to call into question the

magistrate judge's impartiality.

We construe the $120 monetary sanction imposed by the

district court as an imposition of costs pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

1915(e). That statute provides that in cases in which a

plaintiff is proceeding IFP, "[j]udgment may be rendered for

costs at the conclusion of the suit or action as in other

cases[.]" 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). This court reviews decisions of

district courts pursuant to § 1915(e) under the abuse-ofdiscretion standard. Moore v. McDonald, 30 F.3d 616, 621 (5th

Cir. 1994). A case need not be frivolous to merit imposition of

costs. Freeze v. Griffith, 849 F.2d 172, 176 (5th Cir. 1988);

Lay v. Anderson, 837 F.2d 231, 232 (5th Cir. 1988), mandamus

denied, 493 U.S. 806 (1989). 

Lesser sanctions in other cases have failed to dissuade

McQueen from pursuing frivolous litigation. McQueen v. Mata, No.

95-50020, slip op. at 3 (5th Cir. Mar 17, 1995)(unpublished)

(dismissal without prejudice affirmed); McQueen v. Mata, No. 94-

50296, slip op. at 6 (5th Cir. Nov. 2, 1994)(unpublished)($25

monetary sanction affirmed). Because stern measures are
No. 95-50486

-5-

necessary to curb McQueen's recreational litigation, we affirm

the imposition of sanctions on McQueen.

APPEAL DISMISSED.