Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not * be publishe d and is not precedent except under the limited circu mstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNITED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHEFIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 10476 Su m m ar y Cal endar J AM ES EDW ARD DAN I ELS Pl ai nt i f f

- Appe l l ant
v. DA LLAS CO U N TY; D ALLAS CO U N TY H OSPI TAL DI STRI CT; UN IVER SI TY O F T E XA S M E D IC A L B R A N C H ; M D S T E P H E N P B O W E R S ; L E A H L U C IE D efen da n t s- A pp el l ees A pp ealf

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rt f or th e N ort h ern D i st ri ctof T exas U SD C N o. 3: 05- C V
- 1739 B ef ore K IN G , D E N N IS, an d O W E N , C i rcui tJu dg es. P E R C U R IA M: * J a m e s E d w a r dD a n ie ls , T e x a s p r is o n e r#1 4 0 9 3 2 0 , m o v e s to a p p e a l in form apa u p eris (IF P ) from the su m m a ryju d g m e n t dism i ssa lof h i s civilri gh ts cl ai m s a ga i ns tD all as County, Te xa s ; t he D all as County H o s pit alD i st ri ct (D C H D ) ; t he U niver sit y o f Texas M edi c alB r anch (U TM B ) ; and U TM B M edi c al D i r e c t o rSt e phe n P. Bower s , M . D . Da n i e l s ’ s c o m pl ai nta l l e ge d thatt he d e fe n d a n t s we r e d e l ib e r a t e l yi n d i f fe r e n tt o h i s s e r i o u s m e d i c a ln e e d s d u r i n gt wo peri ods w h en he w as i n carcer ated at t h e D al l as C ou n t y Jail . D an i el s c h al l en ges United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D June 24, 2 009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 08- 10476

2 t h e di st ri ct court’ s cert i f i cat i on , pu rsuan tt o B augh v. T aylor , 117 F . 3d 197, 202 (5 th C ir . 1 9 9 7 ), th a t h is a p p e a l is n o t t a k e n ing o o dfa ith . T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t d is m is s e dD a n ie ls ’ s cla im s a g a in s t D C H D o n th e b a s is t h at th e sum m ary j u dg m en tevi den ce s h ow ed D an i el s r eceivedapp ropri ate c are a n dtha t D a n i els w a s resp on sibl e for a n yd e la y s i n h i s m ed i ca ltreatm en t. D a n ie ls h a s a b a n d o n e dth is is s u e b yfa ilin gto id e n t i f ya n yfa c ts to re fu te th is d e te r m in a tio n . Yoheyv . Col l i ns , 9 8 5 F .2 d2 2 2 , 2 2 4 -2 5 (5 th C ir . 1 9 9 3 ). D an i el s argues t h at the di sm i ssalof h i s cl ai m s ag ai n stD al l as C ou n t y f or fai l ure t o e xhaustadm i ni st r at ive r em edi es as r equi r ed by 42 U . S. C . § 1997e ( a) w a s erro r b eca u se th e dist ri ct cou rt erro n eo u sly a ssu m ed th a t th e D a l l a s C ou n ty J a il h a s atw o -s ta g e g r i e v a n c e p r o c e d u r e . T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t d idn o t e r r . S ee Cro w de rv . U. T. M. B. Unkno w n Nu rse , N o. 3- 06- C V
- 0254- B D , 2007 W L 14264 (N .D . T e x . J a n . 3 , 2 0 0 7 ), aff’d, 267 F ed. A pp ’ x 3 1 9 (5 th C i r. 200 8) . W e rej ect D ani e l s ’ s c o nt e nt i o n t hatt he di s m i s s alof hi s cl ai m s aga i ns tU TM B on gr o unds o f E le v e n th A m e n d m e n t im m u n ityw a s e r r o r . S ee S cot tv. P f izerI n c. , 1 8 2 F. A p p ’ x3 1 2 , 3 1 5 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ); Un i vers i ty of T exas Medic al B ran ch at G alve st on v . Mul l i ns , 5 7 S . W . 3 d6 5 3 , 6 5 7 (T e x . A p p . 2 0 0 1 ). D ani e l s di d no t o bj e c t t o t he m ag i s t r at e j udg e ’ s r e c o m m e nda t i o n t hatt he c la im s a g a in s t D r . B o w e r s b e d is m is s e db e c a u s e D a n ie ls s u e dD r . B o w e r s in h is s upe rvi s o r y c ap ac i t y o nly. The di s t r i c tco ur tado pt e d t hi s r e c o m m e nda t i o n a nd gr a n te d s u m m ary j u dg m en ti n favor of D r. B ow ers. W e decl i n e t o add ress D an i el s’ s argum en tt h at th e cl ai m s agai n stD r. B ow ers shou l d n otha ve been d is m is s e db e c a u s e th e d o c t o rw a s “p r e s e n t” d u r in gad is c u s s io n o f D a n ie ls ’s m ed i ca lpr ob l em s be ca u se h e d i dn ot r a is e th e issu e in th e d i stri ct cou rt. S ee Lem ai r ev. La. D e

pt . of Transp. & D e v. , 4 8 0 F .3 d3 8 3 , 3 8 7 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 7 ). D ani el s a ddit i onal l y ar gues t hatt he e nt r y o f s um m ar y j udgm entw as i m p rop er b eca u se th e p roce d u re u sed i n the distri ct cou rt w a s fla w eddu e to prej udi c e a nd j udi c i alm i sc onduct ; he has had pr obl em s engagi ng i n l egal r es ear c h; and he s houl d have bee n al l ow ed t o c onductunspec i f i ed di scove r y.N o. 08- 10476

3 T h e s e a r g u m e n ts a r e u n a v a ilin g . D a n i e l s ’ s a p p e a l is w ith o u t a r g u a b le m e r it an d i s f rivol ou s. Se eHo w ar d v . Ki ng , 7 0 7 F .2d 2 1 5 , 2 1 9 -2 0 (5 t h C ir . 1 9 8 3 ). B e c a u s e th e a p p e a l is fr iv o lo u s , it is d is m is s e d . S ee5 T H C IR . R . 42. 2. Th e d i s m i s s a l o f t h i s a p p e a l a s f r iv o l o u s c o u n t s a s as t r i k e u n d e r2 8 U. S . C. § 1 9 1 5 (g). Se eAde

pegb a v . Ham m o ns , 1 0 3 F .3d3 8 3 , 3 8 7 -8 8 (5t h C ir. 1 9 9 6 ). D a n ie ls is c a u tio n e d th a t if h e a c c u m u la te s th r e e s tr ik e s u n d e r § 1 9 1 5 (g), h e w ill n o t b e a b le to p r o c e e dIF P ina n yc iv i la c t i o n o ra p p e a l file dw h ile h e is i n carcer ated or detai n ed i n an y faci l i t y u n l ess h e i s u n der i m m i n en t da n ger of s e r io u s p h y s ic a l inju r y . S ee§ 1 9 1 5 (g). I F P DE NI ED ; A P P EA L DI S M I S S ED ; S ANC T I ON WARNI NG I S S UED .