IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-40826

Summary Calendar

JAMES EDWARD CAMP,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

JERREY WALRAVEN; BILLY MAC; SUE COLT; 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 prisoner # 1411093, filed a civil

rights complaint 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. After determining that Camp’s complaint was

untimely, the district court dismissed Camp’s complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

July 10, 2012

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

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.

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

§ 1915A(b)(1) as frivolous and for failure to state a claim. Camp has filed 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

Cir. 1998) (holding that a § 1915A dismissal as frivolous is reviewed for abuse

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. Connell, 301 F.3d 240, 246 (5th Cir. 2002); TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM.

CODE ANN. § 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 (in 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 later date does not affect the limitations period. See Gartrell v.

Gaylor, 981 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 district court did not err in concluding that Camp’s complaint was

frivolous or that he failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. 

See Ruiz, 160 F.3d at 275. Consequently, the 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. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383,

2

Case: 11-40826 Document: 00511915077 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/10/2012
No. 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