Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinionshould not * be publishe d and is not precedent except under the limited circu mstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHEFIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 09- 40756 Su m m ar yC al endar
D RE AG LE N SYLV EST ER D AV I S , Pl ai nt i f f

- Appe l l ant
v. T EXAS B OA RD OFC RI M I NALJ US T I CE ; T EXAS DE PARTM ENT OF CR I M I NALJ US T I CE ; B RA D L IVI NGS T ON , D efen da n t s- A pp el l ees
A pp ealf

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rt f or t h e E aster n D i st ri ctof T exas U SD C N o. 6: 08- C V

- 237
B ef ore K IN G , ST E W A R T , an d H AY N E S , C i rcui tJu dg es. P E R C U R IA M: * D reagl en Sy lvest er D avis , T exas pri soner # 127 177 4, app eal s t h e di st ri ct court’ s di sm i ssal of

hi s 42 U
. S
. C
. § 1983 com pl ai n tw h erei n D avis com pl ai n ed th a t h e w a s fo r c e dt o w o r kw ith o u t c o m p e n s a tio n , h e w a s s u bje c t t o ille g a l s tr ip searches, a nd h i s propert y w as i l l egally confi scat ed. Th e di st ri ctcourtdi sm i ssed D avis ’ s c l ai m t hathe w as f o r c e d t o w o r k wi t ho utc o m pe ns at i o n a nd gr ant ed sum m ary j u dg m en ti n favor of t h e defenda n t s. D avis argu es t h at he t i m el y f i l ed United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D April8, 2010 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk Case: 09-40756 Document: 00511074550 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/08/2010N o. 09- 40756

The events in que stiontook place p rior to the amen dments to 28 U.S.C. § 6 36 which 1 changed the relevanttime period to fourte en days effective Dece mber 1, 2 009
. 2 o bj e c t i o ns t o t he m agi st r at e j udg e ’ s r e po r ta nd r e c o m m e nda t i o n. H e c o nt e nds th a t t h e d is tr ic t c o u r t fa ile dto co n d u c t a d e n o v o re v ie w b e c a u s e it im p r o p e r ly f o und t hato bj e c t i o ns w e r e no tt i m e l y f i l e d. B e c a u s e D a v is fo r w a r d e dh is w r itt e n o bje c tio n s to p r is o n o ffic ia ls w ith in te n d a y s o f r e c e iv in gt h e m a g is tr a te ju d g e ’ s r e p o r t, th e o bje c tio n s w e r e tim e ly

1 file d
. S ee T

h ompson v. R asberry , 9 9 3 F .2d 5 1 3 , 5 1 5 (5t h C ir. 1 9 9 3 ). C on sequ en t l y, D avis shou l d h ave been af f ord e d de n ovo revi ew by the di st ri ct c o u r t, a n do u rre v ie w o n a p p e a l is d e n o v o . S ee 2 8 U .S .C
. § 6 3 6 (b )(1)(C ); D o ug la s s v . Un it e dS e r v s . A u to . A s s ’n , 79 F
. 3d141 5, 142 8- 29 (5t h C i r. 199 6) ( en b a n c ).T h e di st ri ctcourtd e n ied D avis ’ s F ED . R . C IV . P . 5 9 (e ) m o tio n w h e r e in D av i s c o m pl ai ne d t hatt he c ou r tfail e d t o a ddr e s s hi s o bj e c t i o ns t o t he m a g is tr a te ju d g e ’ s re p o r t . I n d e n y in gth e m o tio n , th e co u r t fo u n dth a t D a v is fa ile dto s h o w th e d is m is s a l o f h is s u it w a s e r r o n e o u s a n d a l s o d e n ie da ll ou t st an di n g m ot i on s. Th e d i st ri ctcourt ’ s den i alof t h e R u l e 59(e) m ot i on i n d i ca tes th a t a d e n ov o rev i ew w a s con d u cted
. T h u s, an y e rror in fail i n g to c o n s id e r D a v is ’ s o bje c tio n s is h a r m le s s . Se eSm i t h v
. Col l i ns , 964 F
. 2d 483, 485 (5 th C ir. 1 9 9 2 ). D avis does not r en ew an y of t h e sub st an t ive cl ai m s rai sed i n t h e di st ri ct c o ur t . By fail i ng t o br i e f a ny ar gum e ntc hall e ngi ng t he di s t r i c tc o ur t ’ s r e as o ns fo rd is m is s a l, D a v is h a s a b a n d o n e d t h e o n l yg r o u n d s fo ra p p e a l. SeeYohey v. Col l i ns , 9 8 5 F .2 d2 2 2 , 2 2 4 -2 5 (5 th C ir . 1 9 9 3 ); B rin k m a n n v. D a lla s Co u n ty S h erif f A bn er , 8 1 3 F .2d 7 4 4 , 7 4 8 (5t h C ir. 1 9 8 7 ). AF F I RMED. Case: 09-40756 Document: 00511074550 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/08/2010