Luckett v. Lee

 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 98-60311 Summary Calendar LARRY L. LUCKETT, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus ANN L. LEE; ETHEL CARLIZE; WILLIE M. WILLIAMS; JAMES BREWER; J. SPIVEY; RANDY ROBINSON, Defendants-Appellees. - - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi USDC No. 4:96-CV-204-S-D - - - - - - - - - - September 14, 1999 Before DAVIS, EMILIO M. GARZA, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Larry L. Luckett, a Mississippi prisoner (# 42982), appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment to the defendants in his civil rights action. Luckett alleged that the defendants retaliated against him for filing lawsuits and prison grievances, by issuing a false Rules Violation Report (“RVR”) against him, and then convicting him of the rules violation and placing him in close confinement. The district court did not err in concluding that there was no * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. No. 98-60311 -2- genuine issue of material fact as to whether the defendants retaliated against Luckett. See FED. R. CIV. P. 56(c) and (e); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 325 (1996). Luckett has not produced direct evidence or alleged a “chronology of events” from which retaliation may be inferred. See Woods v. Smith, 60 F.3d 1161, 1166 (5th Cir. 1995). Moreover, he has repeatedly admitted to the primary conduct--sexual relations with another inmate--that formed the basis of the challenged RVR. Luckett’s allegations about being placed in close confinement do not state a cognizable constitutional claim, because he had no protected liberty interest in remaining in his prison’s general population. See Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 484-85 (1995). The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. AFFIRMED.