United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT August 17, 2004
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 04-60190
Summary Calendar
KENT METCALF,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
PHILLIP GEORGE, Deputy Sheriff, in his individual and
official capacity; KEITH PARKER, Deputy Sheriff, in his
individual and official capacity; RAY BRAYLOCK, Narcotics
Department, in his individual and official capacity; MONROE
COUNTY SHERIFF DEPARTMENT,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Mississippi
USDC No. 1:03-CV-676-P
--------------------
Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and PICKERING, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Kent Metcalf, Mississippi prisoner # T7454, has filed a
motion for leave to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis (“IFP”)
following the district court’s order dismissing as frivolous
Metcalf’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights action. By moving for
IFP, Metcalf is challenging the district court’s certification
that IFP status should not be granted because the appeal is not
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 04-60190
-2-
taken in good faith. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th
Cir. 1997). Metcalf’s IFP “motion must be directed solely to the
trial court’s reasons for the certification decision.” Id.
Metcalf asserts only that the district court was wrong for
denying him IFP because he had presented sufficient evidence to
support his claims. Although this court liberally construes pro
se briefs, see Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972), the
court requires arguments to be briefed in order to be preserved.
Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 225 (5th Cir. 1993). Because
Metcalf does not provide any analysis of the reasons for the
district court’s certification decision, he has abandoned the
issue on appeal. See id.
Metcalf has not shown that the district court erred in
certifying that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
Accordingly, we uphold the district court’s order certifying that
the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issues. Metcalf’s request
for IFP status is DENIED, and his appeal is DISMISSED as
frivolous. See Baugh, 117 F.3d at 202 n.24; 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.
Metcalf is cautioned that the district court’s dismissal of
his complaint as frivolous and this court’s dismissal of his
appeal count as two strikes under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See
Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 385-87 (5th Cir. 1996). If
Metcalf accrues three strikes, he will not be able to proceed IFP
in any civil action or appeal filed while he is incarcerated or
No. 04-60190
-3-
detained in any facility unless he is under imminent danger of
serious physical injury. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
IFP MOTION DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTIONS WARNING
ISSUED.