re quest for a default judgment was legally frivolous. IV. Conclusions Plaintiffs constitutional claims herein are all legally frivolous. While the Clerks of the federal district courts frequen 324, 106 S.Ct. at 2553; McCallum Highlands v. Washington Capital Dus, Inc., 66 F.3d at 92; "unsupported allegations or affidavits setting forth 'ultimate or eonclusory facts and conclusions of law’ are insufficient to either support or defeat a motion for summary judgment.”; Douglass v. United Services Automobile Association, 65 F.3d 452, 459 (5th Cir.1995);- Quest Exploration & Development Company v. Transco Energy Company, 24 F.3d 738, 741 (5th Cir.1994); Forsyth v. Barr, 19 F.3d at 1533; and Krim v. BancTexas Group, Inc., 5), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 860, 116 S.Ct. 167, 133 L.Ed.2d 109 (1995), (<HOLDING>); Murphy v. Collins, 26 F.3d 541, 543 (5th
holding that review by common law certiorari in district courts of appeal is limited to circuit court decisions constituting denial of procedural due process application of incorrect law or miscarriage of justice holding that mere negligence does not implicate the right to due process holding that a mere failure to accord procedural protection called for by state law or regulation does not of itself amount to a denial of due process holding that mere neglect for prisoners safety does not amount to a substantive due process violation implying that intent to do harm would be an abuse of government power and amount to a substantive due process violation holding a plaintiff cannot state a due process claim for defendants failure to follow statutory procedural requirements because a plaintiff cannot have a protect property interest in the procedure itself