* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5, the Court has determine d 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

____________________

No. 97-10989

Summary Calendar

____________________

BRUCE ALBERT KIRK,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

PHIL RYAN, in his official capacity as

Sheriff of Wise County,

Defendant-Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

(USDC No. 4:96-CV-878-Y)

_________________________________________________________________

February 26, 1998

Before WIENER, BARKSDALE, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Bruce Albert Kirk, Texas prisoner #478497, appeals the

district court’s dis missal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. Kirk

contends that the district court abused its discretion in

di smissing his action as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

1915(e)(2) and in dismissing his claim for injunctive relief as

moot.2

Kirk claims that, after his April 1996 arrest

, officers in the

Wise County Detention Center disregarded his medical condi tion,

failed to provide Miranda warnings or counsel during questioning,

and placed him in a holding cell without a mattress or bunk. Kirk

also claims that, after his July 1996 arrest

, officers in the Wise

County Detention Center delayed medic al treatment of his injured

foot, exposed him to unsanitary conditions, failed to provide overthe-counter medication, failed to provide mail service on

Saturdays, and failed to provide indigent supplies.

Kirk names only Sheriff Phil Ryan as a defendant. But, Kirk

did not allege that Sheriff Ryan directly caused or contributed to

the officers’ alleged actions. Accordingly, the district court did

not abuse its discretion in dismissing these claims against Sheriff

Ryan as frivolous. See Thompkins v. Belt , 828 F.2d 298, 304 (5th

Cir. 1987) (“[A] supervisor may be held liable if there exists

either (1) his personal involvemen t in the constitutional

depriva tion, or (2) a sufficient causal connection between the

supervisor’s wrongful conduct and the constitutional violation.”).

Along this line, the district court ordered Kirk to provide a

more definite statement, specifically requesting facts concerning

Sheriff Ryan’s actions, policies, or failure to supervise t hat

resulted in any of the alleged violations of Kirk’s rights. After

consideration of Kirk’s more definite statement, the district court

dismissed the complaint with prejudice. On appeal, Kirk does not3

contend that the district court’s dismi ssal should have been

without prejudice, or that he would amend his complaint if given

the opportunity. Rodriguez v. United States , 66 F.3d 95, 98 (5th

Cir. 1995) (“When a plaintiff is given an opportunity to amend a

complaint that fa ils to state a claim upon which relief can be

granted, but refuses to do so, then the district court is justified

in dismissing the complaint with prejudice.”), cert. denied

, 116 S.

Ct. 1058 (1996).

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court dis missing

Kirk’s complaint with prejudice is AFFIRMED.