* 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 97-30918

Summary Calendar

 

GOLITH ADAMS, JR.,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

STATE OF LOUISIANA; RICHARD L. STALDER; JAMES LEBLANC;

LESLIE PERKINS, RN, DCI; UNKNOWN STEVENS, LPN, DCI;

UNKNOWN RICHARDSON, Correctional Officer, LSP; 

UNKNOWN BELL, Captain/Lieutenant, Correctional Officer, DCI;

JULIE BEARES, LPN, DCI; UNKNOWN JUAREZ, Doctor, DCI,

Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Louisiana

USDC No. 96-CV-516

- - - - - - - - - -

November 19, 1998

Before EMILIO M. GARZA, DeMOSS, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Golith Adams, Jr., appeals the district court’s judgment

dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights action without

prejudice to any state-law claims. Adams’s motion for the

appointment of counsel to help him obtain a copy of his brief is

DENIED.
No. 97-30918 

-2-

Adams argues that the district court erred in dismissing his

deliberate-indifference claims against Stalder, LeBlanc, Stevens,

Beares(Reames), and Juarez, under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) for

failure to state a claim. We have reviewed the pleadings

throughly and affirm the grant of the motion essentially for the

reasons relied on by the district court in Adams v. Stalder et

al., No. 96-516-B-M1 (M.D. La. Jul. 30, 1997).

Adams has not briefed the issues whether the district court

erred by failing to dismiss his claims against the State of

Louisiana or in dismissing his false-disciplinary-reports claim. 

Although pro se litigants’ briefs are afforded liberal

construction, see Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972),

even pro se litigants must brief arguments in order to preserve

them. Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 225 (5th Cir. 1993). 

Because Adams has failed to brief these issues, he has abandoned

them.

Adams argues that the district court erred in granting the

motion for summary judgment filed by Bell, Richardson, and

Perkins. We have reviewed throughly the pleadings, exhibits,

arguments, and briefs and affirm summary judgment essentially

for the reasons relied on by the district court in Adams v.

Stalder et al., No. 96-516-B-M1 (M.D. La. Jul. 30, 1997).

Adams asserts that the district court erred in dismissing

his prison-transfer claim as frivolous. He argues that he was

transferred in retaliation for his use of the prison grievance

procedure and that Stalder and LeBlanc authorized the transfer

out of malice and to punish Adams. The magistrate judge did not
No. 97-30918 

-3-

address Adams’s assertion that the transfer was made in

retaliation for his use of the prison grievance procedure. In

his objections to the magistrate judge’s report and

recommendation, Adams did not argue that the magistrate judge

failed to address his retaliation claim and did not reargue his

allegations of a retaliatory motive. Because Adams did not raise

this issue in his objections to the magistrate judge's report and

recommendations, we review it for plain error. Douglass v.

United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1428-29 (5th Cir. 1996)

(en banc). The district court did not err in dismissing the

claim. Adams has no constitutional right to be housed in a

particular facility, Olim v. Wakinekona, 461 U.S. 238, 244-45

(1983), and alleged no more than his personal belief that the

transfer was taken in retaliation for his grievances. See Woods

v. Smith, 60 F.3d 1161, 1164 (5th Cir. 1995); Johnson v.

Rodriguez, 110 F.3d 299, 310 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 118 S. Ct.

559 (1997).

Adams also argues that the district court abused its

discretion by declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction

because “the issue of a novel or complex state law violation

[was] not the gist of [his] complaint.” This argument, which

Adams did not raise in his objections to the magistrate judge’s

report and recommendation, lacks merit. A district court may

decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law

claims, inter alia, if the court has dismissed all claims over

which it has original jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

AFFIRMED; MOTION DENIED.