* 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should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-30048

Summary Calendar

RUFUS HAMPTON

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

KATHLEEN BLANCO, Governor of the State of Louisiana; RICHARD

STALDER, Secretary ofthe Department of Public Safety and Corrections; BURL

CAIN, Warden at Louisiana State Penitentiary; JOHN DOE, Culinary Food

Service Manager at Louisiana State Penitentiary; LIEUTENANT UNKNOWN

ARMAND

Defendants-Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Louisiana

USDC No. 3:07-CV-617

Before REAVLEY, DAVIS, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Rufus Hampton, Louisiana prisoner # 329245, filed a civil rights complaint

challenging the service of spoiled or contaminated food, which made Hampton

ill when it was ingested, and the failure ofthe defendants to provide an adequate

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

November 19, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 08-30048

2

substitute meal. The district court dismissed Hampton’s complaint as frivolous

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).

On appeal, Hampton asserts that the district court should not have

dismissed his complaint before the defendants were served. He also contends

that because he was complying with court orders for partial payments, his case

should not have been dismissed. Under § 1915(e)(2), the district court may

dismiss a case at any time if it is frivolous or fails to state a claim upon which

relief can be granted, even if partial payment of the filing fee has been remitted.

Hampton asserts that he is being held to a heightened pleading standard. The

district court properly found that Hampton had failed to provide “a short and

plain statement . . . showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” FED. R. CIV.

P. 8(a)(2). Hampton also contends that the court improperly dismissed his

complaint without providing him with an opportunity to amend. The proposed

amendments Hampton submitted, which were received after the district court

entered judgment, did not counter the district court’s conclusion that Hampton’s

claims were duplicative and did not establish that defendant Armand had

knowledge or intent to cause harm. Thus, any error in denying Hampton an

opportunity to amend was harmless. See Bazrowx v. Scott, 136 F.3d 1053, 1054-

55 (5th Cir. 1998).

Hampton does not challenge the district court’s conclusion that his claims

against all the defendants other than Armand were duplicative to the claims he

presented in Hampton v. Blanco, No. 3:06-CV-527 (M.D. La. Sept. 11, 2006).

When an appellant does not identify any error in the district court’s analysis, it

is the same as if the appellant did not appeal that portion of the judgment. See

Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir.

1987).

Hampton asserts that the district court erred in dismissing his claims

against Armand. With respect to the service of the contaminated meatloaf,

Hampton has not established that Armand was deliberately indifferent to his
No. 08-30048

3

medical or dietary needs. See Harper v. Showers, 174 F.3d 716, 720 (5th Cir.

1999). Hampton does not show that Armand knew of and ignored an excessive

risk of harm. See Bradley v. Puckett, 157 F.3d 1022, 1025 (5th Cir. 1998). With

respect to Armand’s failure to address Hampton’s complaints about his

replacement meal, Hampton does not allege that he ate the allegedly raw food

and thus he cannot show that he suffered physical harm. See 42 U.S.C.

§ 1997e(e). Hampton’s allegation that he was deprived of a single

uncontaminated meal is insufficient to set forth an Eighth Amendment violation.

See Berry v. Brady, 192 F.3d 504, 506, 508 (5th Cir. 1999); see also George v.

King, 837 F.2d 705, 707 (5th Cir. 1988).

Hampton contends that the district court erred in dismissing his lawsuit

for failure to prosecute and failure to obey court orders. The district court

amended the judgment sua sponte to correct the clerical error and clarified that

the dismissal was under § 1915.

Hampton thus has not established that the district court abused its

discretion in dismissing his § 1983 lawsuit as frivolous. See Berry, 192 F.3d at

507. The judgment of the district court is thus affirmed. Hampton is informed

that, upon our affirmance, the district court’s dismissal counts as one strike for

purposes of § 1915(g). See Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 387 (5th Cir.

1986). The district court’s dismissal of No. 3:06-CV-527 also counts as a strike

under § 1915(g). Hampton is cautioned that if he accumulates three strikes, he

will no longer be allowed to proceed in forma pauperis in any civil action or

appeal filed while he is detained or incarcerated in any facility unless he is in

imminent danger of serious physical injury. See § 1915(g).

AFFIRMED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.