United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
April 28, 2003
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Charles R. Fulbruge III
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Clerk
No. 03-10001
Summary Calendar
WILLIE H. BUCKINGHAM,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
MEDICAL DEPARTMENT LUBBOCK COUNTY JAIL,
Defendant-Appellee.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 5:02-CV-76-C
- - - - - - - - - -
Before JONES, STEWART and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Willie H. Buckingham, a Texas prisoner (# 1043643),
appeals from the district court’s sua sponte dismissal of his 42
U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights complaint, without prejudice, for
failure to exhaust administrative remedies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1997e. Buckingham had alleged that Lubbock County Jail staff was
deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs by failing to
treat his bleeding ulcers.
In his appellate brief, Buckingham does not address
the district court’s conclusion that he failed to exhaust
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 03-10001
-2-
administrative remedies by filing grievances at the Lubbock County
Jail. He neither denies failing to pursue such remedies nor argues
that such remedies were unavailable. Failure to identify an error
in the district court’s analysis is the same as if the appellant
had not appealed the judgment. See Brinkmann v. Dallas County
Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987). Because
Buckingham has failed to contest the district court’s conclusion
that he failed to satisfy the exhaustion requirement, he has waived
the only issue relevant to his appeal. See Yohey v. Collins, 985
F.2d 222, 225 (5th Cir. 1993) (issues not briefed are deemed
abandoned).
Buckingham’s appeal is without arguable merit and is thus
frivolous. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983).
Accordingly, the appeal is DISMISSED. 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.
The dismissal of this appeal counts as a “strike” for purposes of
28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 387-88
(5th Cir. 1996). We caution Buckingham that once he accumulates
three strikes, he may not 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 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.