IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-41345
Conference Calendar
ROBERT EARL JOHNSON,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
TIM WEST, ET AL.,
Defendants,
RICHARD ALFORD; DAN LEWIS; DAVID CONLEY;
MICHAEL SIMMONS; WAYNE BREWER; TODD BENOIT;
BRANDAL COLLINS; DAVID HOGAN;
WINFORD GOOLSBEE; JERRY BODIN, JR.,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 1:96-CV-652
--------------------
April 11, 2001
Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and JONES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Robert Earl Johnson, Texas prisoner #538275, proceeding pro
se and in forma pauperis (IFP), appeals the dismissal of his 42
U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. Johnson’s motions for appointment of
counsel and for an injunction or temporary restraining order are
DENIED.
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 99-41345
-2-
Johnson asserts, without explanation, that he was denied due
process during disciplinary proceedings and that he was charged
with a disciplinary infraction by the wrong prison official.
Johnson does not challenge the district court’s reasons for
dismissing, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) as frivolous
and for failure to state a claim, his claims related to the
disciplinary proceedings. See Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy
Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987) (when appellant
fails to identify error in district court’s analysis, it is the
same as if appellant had not appealed the judgment). Thus,
Johnson has abandoned any challenge to the district court’s
reasons for dismissing his claims concerning the prison
disciplinary proceedings. See id.
Johnson reiterates that the defendants used excessive force
against him, and he asserts that Nurse Eaves should have been
called to testify at trial. Johnson has not briefed these issues
sufficiently. See Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(9); Grant v. Cuellar, 59
F.3d 523, 524 (5th Cir. 1995).
Johnson’s appeal is without arguable merit and is frivolous.
See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983).
Because the appeal is frivolous, it is DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR.
R. 42.2.
The dismissal of Johnson’s appeal and the district court’s
dismissal as frivolous and for failure to state a claim count as
two strikes for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Adepegba v.
Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 387-88 (5th Cir. 1996). We caution
Johnson that once he accumulates three strikes, he may not
No. 99-41345
-3-
proceed IFP 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 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(g).
APPEAL DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED;
MOTIONS DENIED.