IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-40121
Conference Calendar
LENARD ALFRED SMOCK, JR.,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
UNIT HEALTH ADMINISTRATOR, Gurney Unit, Moore Unit;
MARIE BLACK, Nurse Practioner, Moore Unit; UP GREENWOOD,
Administration, Moore Unit; POLLA HEWITT, RN, Moore Unit;
UP KEARNEY, Administration, Moore Unit; ROCHELLE MCKINNEY,
RN, Moore Unit,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 3:01-CV-41
--------------------
October 30, 2002
Before DeMOSS, BENAVIDES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Lenard Alfred Smock, Texas prisoner # 885088, appeals the
district court's dismissal without prejudice of his pro se, in
forma pauperis 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for failure to comply with
the order requiring him to answer specific questions about each
defendant’s personal involvement and actions supporting his claim
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 02-40121
-2-
of deliberate indifference and for failure to exhaust
administrative remedies.
Smock’s appellate brief is devoted to arguing the merits of
his complaint. Smock does not adequately argue that the district
court erred in dismissing his complaint without prejudice based
on either failure to amend his complaint in compliance with the
magistrate judge’s order to provide specific facts concerning
each named defendant, or failure to provide proof that his claims
as to each named defendant were administratively exhausted.
Smock's appellate brief does not challenge the reasons for the
district court's dismissal of his complaint. Smock has thus
waived the only issues for appeal. Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d
222, 225 (5th Cir. 1993); Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy
Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987). This appeal is
without arguable merit and is thus frivolous. See Howard v.
King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983). It is therefore
DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2. Smock's outstanding motions are
DENIED.
The dismissal of this appeal counts as Smock’s second strike
under the Prison Litigation Reform Act. See Adepegba v. Hammons,
103 F.3d 383, 387 (5th Cir. 1996); Smock v. Unit Health
Administrator, No. 01-41402 (5th Cir. May 31, 2002)(unpublished)
(first strike). Smock is WARNED that if he accumulates three
"strikes" under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) he will not be able to
proceed IFP in any civil action or appeal filed while he is
No. 02-40121
-3-
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, MOTIONS DENIED, SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.