IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-30660
Conference Calendar
AARON J. JOHNSON,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
CHRIS SMITH; CURLEY MATHEWS; GRADY P.
GAGNARD; LEON COCO; TATE, Sergeant;
JOSEPH FURGUSON; ROBERT LEMOINE, Cadet;
CORY WALDING; EDDIE MILLS; GARY DUBROC;
KAYLO, Warden,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
USDC No. 99-CV-1155
--------------------
February 20, 2002
Before JOLLY, JONES, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Aaron J. Johnson appeals from the dismissal as frivolous of
his claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against various corrections
officers and prison officials. Johnson’s brief, which is simply
a typed version of his district court motion for summary
judgment, contains no record citations and no identification of
any error in the magistrate judge’s order dismissing his claims.
Although this court applies less stringent standards to parties
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 01-30660
-2-
proceeding pro se than to parties represented by counsel and
liberally construes the briefs of pro se litigants, pro se
parties must still brief the issues and reasonably comply with
the requirements of FED. R. CIV. P. 28. See Grant v. Cuellar, 59
F.3d 523, 524 (5th Cir. 1995). Johnson has not adequately
briefed any argument regarding the magistrate judge’s dismissal
of his constitutional claims as frivolous.
Johnson’s failure to identify any error in the district
court's legal analysis or its application to the facts of this
case "is the same as if he had not appealed that judgment."
Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744,
748 (5th Cir. 1987). This court "will not raise and discuss
legal issues that [Johnson] has failed to assert." Id.
Johnson’s appeal is without arguable merit and is thus frivolous.
See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983). Because
this appeal lacks merit, it is DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.
The magistrate judge’s dismissal of Johnson’s claims as
frivolous counts as a ”strike” for the purposes of 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(g), and the dismissal of this appeal as frivolous counts
as a second “strike.” See Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 387
(5th Cir. 1996). Johnson is hereby warned that should he
accumulate three “strikes,” he will be barred from proceeding 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 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(g).
APPEAL DISMISSED; TWO-STRIKES WARNING ISSUED.