Case Name: George CARLISLE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Warden JONES; Lieutenant Selman, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-01-04
Citations: 124 F. App'x 227
Docket Number: No. 04-20236
Parties: George CARLISLE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Warden JONES; Lieutenant Selman, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before WIENER, BENAVIDES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 124
Pages: 227–228

Head Matter:
George CARLISLE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Warden JONES; Lieutenant Selman, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 04-20236
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Decided Jan. 4, 2005.
George Carlisle, # 494912, Huntsville, TX, pro se.
Shanna Elizabeth Molinare, Office of the Attorney General for the State of Texas, Austin, TX, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before WIENER, BENAVIDES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Plaintiff-Appellant George Carlisle, Texas prisoner # 494912, appeals from the district court's summary-judgment dismissal of his § 1983 lawsuit against Defendants-Appellants Assistant Warden Mark Jones and Officer Troy Selman. Carlisle alleged that the defendants violated his constitutional rights by reassigning him from the carpentry work unit to the hog barn work unit. Carlisle argues on appeal that: (1) the district court abused its discretion by denying his motions to file a second amended complaint, for an extension of time to file a supplemental complaint, and for an extension of time to conduct discovery; and (2) the district court's grant of summary judgment was incorrect.
Examination of the record shows that the denial of Carlisle's motion to amend his complaint a second time was harmless. See Bazrowx v. Scott, 136 F.3d 1053, 1054-55 (5th Cir.1998). Carlisle sought a second extension of time to file a response to the defendants' summary-judgment motion so that he could file a supplemental complaint. The district court was within its discretion to deny Carlisle's request to file a supplemental complaint because the defendants' summary-judgment motion had already been filed and Carlisle was trying to raise claims that were "similar in nature" to his original claims. See Burns v. Exxon Corp., 158 F.3d 336, 343 (5th Cir.1998). As Carlisle's motion for an extension of time to conduct discovery did not meet the requirements of Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(f), the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying that motion. See Beattie v. Madison County Sch. Disk, 254 F.3d 595, 605-06 (5th Cir.2001).
We review a grant of summary judgment de novo, using the standard applicable in the district court. See Melton v. Teachers Ins. & Annuity Ass'n of America, 114 F.3d 557, 559 (5th Cir.1997). By failing to challenge the district court's holding that he did not have a constitutional right to a particular job assignment, Carlisle abandoned that issue. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993). Even if he had not, however, he could not have prevailed, as that claim is foreclosed by precedent. See Bulger v. United States Bureau of Prisons, 65 F.3d 48, 49 (5th Cir.1995); Jackson v. Cain, 864 F.2d 1235, 1248 n. 3 (5th Cir.1989). Car-lisle also failed to set forth a valid equal-protection claim regarding the delegation of job assignments to African-American inmates in his prison. See Johnson v. Rodriguez, 110 F.3d 299, 306-07 (5th Cir. 1997).
As Carlisle failed to state a valid 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim, the district court properly granted summary judgment for the defendants. See Wong v. Stripling, 881 F.2d 200, 202 (5th Cir.1989). Accordingly, the district court's judgment is
AFFIRMED.
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.