* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR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. 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 individualsand 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 ClerkNo. 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 conspi racy 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
c ourt did not err by not construing Turner's claim as a section 1983 action. Turner repeatedly expressly stated in his filings that he did notwant 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 Haynewas precluded by the Supreme Court decision in Heck
v. Humphrey, 114 S.Ct. 2364 (1994)). So, while prose 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 li kely have been barred by H eck v. Humphrey and because Turner repeatedly expressly insisted that he was not bringing a section 1983 action. Liberally construed, Turner’s briefalsocontends that hewas prevented by the magistrate judge and the district court from amending his complaint. However, Turner has not alleged that he expressly requested leave toamend his complaint, and, in any event, Turner has not shown that any attempt to amendment to his complaint would not have been futile. s ee 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 f ile 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 thejudgment’s entry. F ED
. R. C IV
. 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
c onclude 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 ofTurner’s section 1985 claims is AFFIRMED.