IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-40414
Conference Calendar
LUCIOUS ALVIN JONES, JR.,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
UNIDENTIFIED KUYKENDALL, Doctor, Coffield Unit;
JOHN EATENING, Coffield Unit Physician,
Defendants-Appellees.
------------------------------------
LUCIOUS ALVIN JONES, JR.,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
UNIDENTIFIED KUYKENDALL, Doctor; JOHN EATENING, Doctor,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 6:99-CV-317
USDC No. 6:00-CV-577
--------------------
June 18, 2002
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 01-40414
2–
Lucious Alvin Jones, Jr., Texas prisoner # 470169, filed a
complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the physician at his
prison unit alleging that he was denied medical care with respect
to his complaints of foot pain. The magistrate judge dismissed
the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) & (ii).
Jones did not file a notice of appeal from this judgment. Jones
filed a motion pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 60(b)(6), which was
denied. Jones now appeals the denial of that motion.
In his appellate brief, Jones simply recites his original
claims and does not mention the strict standard of review that
applies to the denial of Rule 60(b) relief. See Seven Elves,
Inc. v. Eskenazi, 635 F.2d 396, 402 (5th Cir. 1981). Although
pro se briefs are afforded a liberal construction, even pro se
litigants must brief arguments in order to preserve them. Yohey
v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993). Jones’s brief
fails in this regard. Accordingly, Jones's appeal is without
arguable merit and is DISMISSED. 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.
The magistrate judge’s dismissal of the original complaint
and the dismissal of this appeal each count as a strike for
purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d
383, 387 (5th Cir. 1996). Jones is warned that if he accumulates
three strikes, he may not proceed IFP in any civil action or
appeal while he is incarcerated or detained in any facility
unless he is in imminent danger of serious physical injury.
28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).