* 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that this opinion should not be published.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. 95-60098

Conference Calendar

__________________

PATRICK STEWART,

 Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

L. GLENN HOWELL, Former Superintendent

S.M.C.I., in his personal capacity;

CHARLES C. BAILEY, Chief of Security, S.M.C.I.;

RICHARD L. MARTIN, in his official capacity as

Superintendent of the South Mississippi

Correctional Facility,

 Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 2:93-CV-291

- - - - - - - - - -

(October 18, 1995)

Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, and REAVLEY and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Patrick Stewart appeals the dismissal of his civil rights

suit. We construe his arguments as a challenge to the district

court's legal conclusion concerning Stewart's claim of

retaliation. Review is de novo. Exxon Corp. v. Crosby-
No. 95-60098

-2-

Mississippi Resources, Ltd., 40 F.3d 1474, 1480-81 (5th Cir. 1995).

A prisoner has no constitutional right to a specific work

assignment. Jackson v. Cain, 864 F.2d 1235, 1248 n.3 (5th Cir.

1989). Prison officials may transfer prisoners to any job "for

almost any reason or no reason at all." Id. However, a job

transfer cannot be made in retaliation against the exercise of

constitutional rights. Id. Likewise, a prisoner has no

constitutional right to be housed in a particular facility. See

Olim v. Wakinekona, 461 U.S. 238, 244-45 (1983).

"To state a claim of retaliation an inmate must allege the

violation of a specific constitutional right and be prepared to

establish that but for the retaliatory motive the complained of

incident . . . would not have occurred." Woods v. Smith, 60 F.3d

1161, 1166 (5th Cir. 1995) (footnote omitted). "The inmate must

produce direct evidence of [the defendants'] motivation or . . .

allege a chronology of events from which retaliation may

plausibly be inferred." Id. (internal quotation marks and

footnote omitted). If the conduct alleged to constitute

retaliation would not, by itself, raise the inference that such

conduct was retaliatory, the assertion of the claim itself

without supporting facts is insufficient. See Whittington v.

Lynaugh, 842 F.2d 818, 819 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 840

(1988). 

Stewart's allegations do not support an inference of

retaliation. See Woods, 60 F.3d at 1166. His reliance upon the

common employer of the defendants and the alleged thieves at the

Harrison County, Mississippi, Community Work Center (CWC) and
No. 95-60098

-3-

upon the expectation of the George County, Mississippi, CWC

employees of Stewart's arrival is insufficient to support the

necessary inference of retaliation, especially in light of the

reasonable concern for Stewart's welfare if he remained at the

Harrison CWC. Thus, the court did not err in concluding that no

constitutional violation had occurred.

To the extent that Stewart argues that error occurred at the

evidentiary hearing conducted by the magistrate judge, in light

of the above analysis, any error at the hearing would have been

harmless. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 61. 

This appeal borders on the frivolous. We caution Stewart

that any additional frivolous appeals filed by him or on his

behalf will invite the imposition of sanctions. To avoid

sanctions, Stewart is further cautioned to review all pending

appeals to ensure that they do not raise arguments that are

frivolous because they have been previously decided by this

court. 

AFFIRMED. ADMONITION ISSUED.