### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14

- 30093 Summary Calendar

DEREK D. HARRIS , Plaintiff

- Appellant

v. STEPHEN KUPLESKY; DOCTOR WHEAT; TIMOTHY KEITH; CORRECTIONS CORPORATION OF AMERICA; NURSE BROADWAY , Defendant s - Appellee s

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana USDC No. 1:13

- CV

- 598

Before DAVIS , BARKSDALE, and OWEN , Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Derek D. Harris, Louisiana prisoner # 414072, pro se and in forma pauperis , challenges the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint for failure to state a claim and frivolous ness
. In his complaint, Har ris claimed Dr. Kuplesky, Dr. Wheat , and Nurse Broadway, employees at the Winn Correctional Center , were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs

* Pursuant to 5 th Cir. R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 th Cir. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED September 15, 2014 Lyle W. C ayce Clerk Case: 14-30093 Document: 00512768726 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/15/2014No. 14

- 30093
when they prescribed him allegedly dangerous medication and failed to respond to his concerns abo ut the medication other than to discontinue it

. D ismissal for failure to state a claim un der § 1915(e)(2) is reviewed de

novo , the standard used for dismissals pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). E.g. , B lack v. Warren , 134 F.3d 732, 734 (5th Cir. 1998). To survive dismissal, the complaint must “‘ state a claim to relie f that is plausible on its face ’”

. In re Katrina Canal Breaches Litigation , 495 F.3d 191, 205 (5th Cir. 2007) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly , 550 U .S. 544, 570 (2007)). Because we conclude that Harris did not meet this standard, we do

no t consider separately whether his complaint was frivolous. On appeal, Harris provides only conclusory assertions of error and deliberate indifference. Harris fails to articulate facts showing t he medical defendants knew of a substantial risk to Harris’ health and disregarded it deliberately

. See Rogers v. Boatright , 709 F.3d 403, 410 (5th Cir. 2013)

. Harris does not challenge the dismissal of his complaint as it pertains to his claims against Keith, Heyse, or Corrections Corporation of America. Accordingly, he has abandoned the m on appeal

. E.g. , Yohey v. Collins , 985 F.2d 222, 224

– 25 (5th Cir. 1993); Brinkmann v. Dallas C nty

. Deputy Sheriff Abner , 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987). Finally, Harris contends the court committed error in denying his motion for appointment of counsel

. Because he fails to claim exceptional circumstances justify such appointment , he fails to show the district court abused its discreti on. See Branch v. Cole , 686 F.2d 264, 266 (5th Cir. 1982). T he district court’s dismissal of Harris’ complaint count s as a strike under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g )

. See Adepegba v. Hammons , 103 F.3d 383, 387

– 88 (5th Cir. 1996). Harris is warned that , if he accumulates three strikes, he will no longer be allowed to proceed in forma pauperis in any civil action or appeal

2 Case: 14-30093 Document: 00512768726 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/15/2014No. 14

- 30093
filed while he is incarcerated or detained in any facility , unless he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. See § 1915 (g). AFFIRMED ; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.

3 Case: 14-30093 Document: 00512768726 Page: 3 Date Filed: 09/15/2014