Case ID: f-appx_146/html/0720-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM: \n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Duane B. HARRIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Richard C. THALER, Senior Warden; Steven R. Rich, Assistant Warden; Abbas Khoshdel; Lowry Powers, Physician’s Assistant; MS. D.A. Ruby, Nurse Practitioner, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 04-20706.
    Conference Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Decided Aug. 16, 2005.
    
      Duane B. Harris, Beaumont, TX, pro se.
    Ginger R. Phillips, Office of the Attorney General for the State of Texas, Austin, TX, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before BENAVIDES, CLEMENT, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Duane B. Harris, Texas prisoner no. 934689, appeals the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Harris contends that the defendants failed to provide him with adequate medical care.

Harris’s complaint, his more definite statement in the district court, and the transcript of his hearing held pursuant to Spears v. McCotter, 766 F.2d 179, 180-81 (5th Cir.1985), reveal that he has failed to allege facts to establish deliberate indifference to a serious medical need as is required in order to proceed under the Eighth Amendment and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Varnado v. Lynaugh, 920 F.2d 320, 321 (5th Cir.1991). The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

Harris is warned that the district court’s dismissal of his action as frivolous counts as a strike under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). If Harris accumulates three strikes, he will not be able to 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 Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 387-88 (5th Cir.1996); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

AFFIRMED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.