
    Jimmy CULBERT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Richard PENNINGTON, Director of Inmate Legal Assistance, in his official capacity; Valerie S. Burchfield, ILAP Staff, Unit 29 Law Library, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 05-60309
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    July 19, 2006.
    Jimmy Culbert, Cleveland, MS, pro se.
    John Lewis Clay, Office of the Attorney General for the State of Mississippi, Jackson, MS, for Defendant-Appellee.
    Before JOLLY, DAVIS and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Jimmy Culbert, Mississippi prisoner # R-2343, appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment for the defendants and dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action.

Culbert argues for the first time on appeal that defendant Burchfield maliciously intended to harm him and deliberately failed to mail his pleading timely and that Burchfield denied other inmates their constitutional rights. We do not address these arguments because Culbert is raising them for the first time in this appeal. See Leverette v. Louisville Ladder Co., 183 F.3d 339, 342 (5th Cir.1999).

Culbert contends that the district court erred in granting summary judgment without first allowing him to conduct discovery. He also contends that the magistrate judge erred in denying his requests for appointment of counsel. Culbert has not shown that the magistrate judge abused his discretion in denying Culbert’s requests for discovery and appointed counsel. See King v. Dogan, 31 F.3d 344, 346 (5th Cir.1994); Ulmer v. Chancellor, 691 F.2d 209, 212 (5th Cir.1982).

Culbert argues that the district court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of Burchfield because she caused his motion for rehearing to be untimely filed and thereby denied him access to the courts. Culbert’s motion was not denied because Burchfield failed to timely mail the pleading. Rather, the motion was denied because the court did not apply the mailbox rule. The district court did not err in granting summary judgment because there was no genuine issue as to any material fact, and Culbert failed to show that Burchfield’s actions denied him access to the courts or caused him injury. Richardson v. McDonnell, 841 F.2d 120, 121-22 (5th Cir.1988).

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court 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       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     