IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-30645

Summary Calendar

CARLOS A. MCGREW,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

BURL CAIN, WARDEN, LOUISIANA STATE PENITENTIARY; JOE

LEMARTINIERE, Warden; JOHN L CALVERT, Warden,

Defendants-Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Louisiana

USDC No. 3:09-CV-1019

Before KING, BENAVIDES, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

*

Carlos A. McGrew, Louisiana state prisoner # 413135, proceeding pro se,

moves for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) in an appeal of the district

court’s judgment dismissing his civil rights complaint for failure to exhaust

administrative remedies pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). McGrew’s IFP

motion is a challenge to the district court’s certification that his appeal is not

taken in good faith. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997).

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

December 16, 2010

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: 10-30645 Document: 00511323560 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/16/2010
No. 10-30645

McGrew argues that the district court failed to provide written reasons for

the certification that his appeal was not taken in good faith but merely referred

to the magistrate judge’s report. To comply with the written-reasons

requirement, the district court may incorporate by reference its prior decision.

See Baugh, 117 F.3d at 202 n.21. Here, the district court certified that McGrew’s

appeal was not taken in good faith for the reasons set forth in the magistrate

judge’s report, which the district court had adopted. The district court’s reasons

were sufficient. See Baugh, 117 F.3d at 202 n.21.

Contrary to McGrew’s suggestion that he can merely incorporate by

reference his arguments made in his objections to the magistrate judge’s report,

this court requires arguments to be made in the body of a brief and does not

permit incorporation of prior pleadings by reference, even in the case of pro se

litigants. Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993). By failing to

adequately brief any argument challenging the district court’s dismissal of his

complaint for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, he has abandoned the

only cognizable issue before this court. See id.; Brinkmann v. Dallas County

Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987).

McGrew has not shown that he will present a nonfrivolous issue on appeal.

See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983). Accordingly, his motion

for leave to proceed IFP is DENIED and the appeal is DISMISSED as frivolous.

See Baugh, 117 F.3d at 202 n.24; 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

The dismissal of this appeal counts as one strike under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(g). See Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 387-88 (5th Cir. 1996).

McGrew has one prior strike. McGrew v. Roundtree, No. 09-31206, 2010 WL

2836113 at *1 (5th Cir. Jul. 20, 2010) (unpublished). McGrew is CAUTIONED

that if he accumulates three strikes under § 1915(g), he will not be able to

proceed IFP 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 § 1915(g).

2

Case: 10-30645 Document: 00511323560 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/16/2010
No. 10-30645

IFP MOTION DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTION WARNING

ISSUED.

3

Case: 10-30645 Document: 00511323560 Page: 3 Date Filed: 12/16/2010