IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-40956
Conference Calendar
HAROLD W. COLEMAN,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
WAYNE SCOTT, DIRECTOR, TEXAS
DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE,
INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION; S.O. WOODS,
Chairman, Classifications; UNIDENTIFIED
BELL, Warden, Bradshaw State Jail;
G. FERGERSON, RN, Medical Department
Defendants-Appellees.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 6:98-CV-713
- - - - - - - - - -
June 15, 2000
Before JOLLY, DAVIS, and DUHÉ, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Harold W. Coleman appeals the district court’s dismissal
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)&(ii) of his civil rights
lawsuit filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Coleman’s argument that
prison officials were deliberately indifferent to his complaints
of leg pain and stomach pain and ulcers is not supported by his
medical records, which indicate that his complaints were
regularly and frequently addressed. Coleman’s complaint seems to
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 99-40956
-2-
be that the prescribed treatment was unsuccessful in alleviating
his pain. Unsuccessful or inadequate medical treatment does not
give rise to a civil rights action. See Varnado v. Lynaugh, 920
F.2d 320, 321 (5th Cir. 1991); Johnson v. Treen, 759 F.2d 1236,
1238 (5th Cir. 1985). Nor does disagreement with medical
treatment. Norton v. Dimazana, 122 F.3d 286, 292 (5th Cir.
1997). The district court did not err in dismissing Coleman’s
complaint as frivolous and for failure to state a claim upon
which relief could be granted. See § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)&(ii).
Coleman’s appeal is without arguable merit and is frivolous.
Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983). The appeal
is therefore DISMISSED. 5TH CIR. R. 42.2. Coleman is hereby
warned that the dismissal of his complaint counts as a strike for
purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) and that the dismissal of his
appeal counts as a second strike. Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d
383, 387-88 (5th Cir. 1996). If Coleman accumulates one more
“strike” under § 1915(g), he will not be able to proceed in forma
pauperis in any civil action or appeal filed while he is
incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he is under
imminent danger of serious physical injury. See § 1915(g).
APPEAL DISMISSED; STRIKE WARNING ISSUED.