United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT October 20, 2003
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 03-20436
Summary Calendar
JEFFREY MACK CHAPIN,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
JOE FERNALD, Senior Warden; ROBERT LOSACK, Lieutenant;
L. BELL, Correctional Officer III,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. H-02-CV-4217
--------------------
Before JOLLY, WIENER, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Jeffrey Mack Chapin, Texas prisoner #392982, appeals from
the district court’s dismissal with prejudice of his civil-rights
lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that defendants Senior
Warden Joe Fernald, Lieutenant Robert Losack, and Officer L. Bell
violated his constitutional rights. A dismissal under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) for failure to state a claim upon which
relief can be granted is reviewed under the same de novo standard
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 03-20436
-2-
as a dismissal under FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6). See Black v.
Warren, 134 F.3d 732, 733-34 (5th Cir. 1998).
Chapin argues that: (1) his constitutional arguments stated
a claim upon which relief could be granted; (2) the district
court erred by failing to explicitly deny his request for
declaratory relief; (3) the district court erred by denying his
requests for preliminary injunction and for leave to amend his
complaint; (4) the district court erred by failing to order sua
sponte proper medical care for Chapin; and (5) the district court
erred by failing to rule in his favor based on allegations of a
violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. He has also
filed motions seeking to supplement the record and for
appointment of a master on appeal.
Chapin has failed to show that he was deprived of a liberty
interest or that the defendants exhibited deliberate indifference
regarding Chapin’s exposure to bleach. See Sandin v. Conner, 515
U.S. 472, 484 (1995); Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837, 847
(1994). Chapin has also failed to show that the district court
erred regarding any of his remaining arguments. Accordingly, the
district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED, and Chapin’s motions on
appeal are DENIED.
The district court’s dismissal for failure to state a claim
counts as one strike for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See
Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 387 (5th Cir. 1996). Chapin
is warned that if he accumulates three strikes, he may not
No. 03-20436
-3-
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).
AFFIRMED; MOTIONS DENIED; STRIKE WARNING ISSUED.