### IN THE UNI TED STAT ES COURT OFAPPEALS FOR THE FIF TH CIRCU IT

No. 11-40826 Summary Calendar

JAMES EDWARD CAMP, Plaintiff-Appellant

v. JERREY WALRAVEN; BILLY MAC; SUE CO L T ; DONNA K. EARLEY; NORMAN COOK, JR., Defendants-Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 2:11-CV-192

Before KING, JOLLY, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * In 2011, James Edward Camp, Texas p ri s o n e r # 1411093, filed a civil

ri gh t s c omplaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, asserting that in 2006 the defendants had drugged him, kidnaped him, and implanted a transmitter device in him without his consent. Af t e r d etermining that Camp’s complaint was untimely, the district court dismissed Camp’s complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. U n i te d S ta te s C o u rt o f A p p ea l s

F i ft h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D July 10, 2 012 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk

Purs uant to 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5 , the cour t hasd ete rm inedt hat this op inion sho uld not * be publ ish ed and is not pr ece dent excep t unde r the lim ite d cir cum st ance s se t forth in 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5 .4. Case: 11-40826 Document: 00511915077 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/10/2012No. 11-40826

§ 1915A(b)(1) as frivolous and for failure to state a claim. Camp ha s f iled a timely appeal from the district court’s ruling. Our case law is unclear as to whether we review a district court’s § 1915A dismissal de novo or for abuse of discretion. See Ruiz v. United States , 160 F.3d 273, 275 (5th Cir. 1998) (de novo review); Martin v. Scott , 156 F.3d 578, 580 (5th C ir . 1998) (holding that a § 1915A dismissal as frivolous is reviewed for abu s e of discretion). We need not resolve this discrepancy, as Camp’s appeal fails under even the more onerous de novo standard of review. Camp does not dispute that his kidnaping and the purported implanting of the microtransmitter occurred in 2006, that he did not file suit until 2011, and that Texas has a two-year limitations period for the filing of civil rights claims. See Hitt v. Conne l l , 3 0 1 F.3d 240, 246 (5th Cir. 2002); T E X
. C IV
. P RA C
. & R E M
. C O D E AN N
. § 16.003(a) (West 2011). Instead, he contends that the limitations period should not begin until either he learned that a microtransmitter had allegedly been implanted (in either 2008 or 2010) or when he learned that such

a device could cause cancer or tumors (i n 2010 or 2011). Camp’s allegations indicate that he was aware that he suffered an injury in 2006 and that he knew the perpetrators of the offenses against him at that time, which is sufficient to start the limitations period. See Moore v. McDonald , 30 F.3d 620, 621 (5th Cir. 1994). The fact that Camp alleges that he realized the potential severity of his injuries at a la t er date does not affect the limitations period. See Gartrell v. Gaylor , 9 8 1 F

. 2d 254, 257 (5th Cir. 1993). Additionally, such allegations are insufficient to establish that Camp is suffering from a continuing tort. See First Gen. Realty Corp. v. Maryland Cas. Co. , 981 S.W.2d 495, 501 (Tex. App. 1998). The dis t ri c t c o urt did not err in concluding that Camp’s complaint was frivolous o r t h a t h e failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. See Ruiz , 160 F.3d at 275. Consequently, t h e judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. The dismissal of Camp’s suit in the district court counts as a strike for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Adepegba v. Ham m o n s , 103 F.3d 383,
2 Case: 11-40826 Document: 00511915077 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/10/2012No. 11-40826

387 (5th Cir. 1996). Camp is WARNED 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 detailed in any facility unless he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. See § 1915(g). Camp’s motion to supplement the record with additional evidence is DENIED. His motion for appointment of counsel is likewise DENIED.

3 Case: 11-40826 Document: 00511915077 Page: 3 Date Filed: 07/10/2012