IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-41161

Summary Calendar

WILLIAM WALLACE FREY,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

LORIE DAVIS; BEN G. RAIMER; JENNIFER F. WILLIAMS; CHARLES D. 

ADAMS; UNKNOWN PARTIES, Unknown Medical Supervisors; KEVIN 

MOORE; UNKNOWN PARTY, Unknown Texas Department of Criminal 

Justice Step II Grievance Investigators,

Defendants-Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 6:18-CV-137

Before CLEMENT, ELROD, and OLDHAM, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

William Wallace Frey, Texas prisoner # 1718159, filed a civil rights 

complaint in which he named several prison officials as defendants. He 

asserted that he suffered from problems with his spine that were aggravated 

by transportation over bumpy roads in a prison vehicle known as a “chain bus.” 

 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

October 30, 2019

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 18-41161 Document: 00515179516 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/30/2019
No. 18-41161

2

He averred that specialists had recommended that various medical devices and 

supplies be provided to him, but prison officials had failed to do so. Frey now 

appeals from the dismissal, as frivolous and for failure to state a claim on 

which relief may be granted, of his complaint.

Although pro se briefs are liberally construed, see Morrow v. FBI, 2 F.3d 

642, 643 n.2 (5th Cir. 1993), even pro se litigants must brief arguments in order 

to preserve them, Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993). Frey’s 

pro se brief does not refer to any of the several defendants by name or by any 

other identifying characteristic, and he has therefore abandoned his claims by 

failing to adequately brief them. See id. 

Even if we assume arguendo that Frey’s briefing is adequate, his appeal 

lacks arguable merit. He sued medical care providers Williams and Adams, 

asserting that they failed to order that he be transported on a patient transport 

vehicle, and that they failed to order that he receive therapeutic medical 

devices. Because the record establishes that Frey “was afforded extensive 

medical care by prison officials,” however, he is unable to establish a claim of 

deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. Brauner v. Coody, 793 

F.3d 493, 500 (5th Cir. 2015) (quotation and citation omitted). 

Additionally, Frey’s mere disagreement with the mode of transportation 

chosen by prison officials does not state an Eighth Amendment claim for 

indifference to medical needs. See Norton v. Dimazana, 122 F.3d 286, 292 (5th 

Cir. 1997). The record also establishes that Frey did not meet the criteria for 

any available mode of transportation other than “chain bus.” In view of the 

foregoing, the district court did not err in dismissing Frey’s claims against 

Williams and Adams. See Brewster v. Dretke, 587 F.3d 764, 770 (5th Cir. 2009).

Frey’s claims against defendants Davis and Raimer were based on their 

supervisory positions, as were his claims against the unknown supervisors of 

 Case: 18-41161 Document: 00515179516 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/30/2019
No. 18-41161

3

Williams and Adams. These claims were properly dismissed because Frey

failed to allege that any of the supervisory defendants affirmatively 

participated in the acts that allegedly caused a constitutional deprivation or 

that an unconstitutional policy was implemented by these defendants and that 

such unconstitutional policy was causally related to his injury. See Porter 

v. Epps, 659 F.3d 440, 446 (5th Cir. 2011). Finally, Frey’s claims against Moore 

and unknown investigators for their roles in the denial of his grievances were 

properly dismissed because an inmate has no liberty interest in having 

grievances resolved to his satisfaction. See Geiger v. Jowers, 404 F.3d 371, 374

(5th Cir. 2005).

Because Frey’s appeal lacks arguable merit, it is dismissed as frivolous. 

See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983); 5TH CIR. R. 42.2. Both 

this court’s dismissal of the instant appeal and the district court’s dismissal of 

his complaint count as strikes for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See

Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 388 (5th Cir. 1996). Frey had previously 

accumulated two strikes. See Frey v. Buckingham, 554 F. App’x 340, 342 (5th 

Cir. 2014) (noting that the district court’s dismissal counted as a strike); Frey 

v. Moss, No. 4:13-cv-418 (E.D. Tex. June 23, 2015). Because Frey has now 

accumulated at least three strikes, he is barred from proceeding in forma 

pauperis in any civil action or appeal unless he “is under imminent danger of 

serious physical injury.” § 1915(g). Frey is warned that filing actions or 

appeals that are frivolous or fail to state a claim will result in the imposition 

of additional and more severe sanctions.

APPEAL DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS; 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) BAR 

IMPOSED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.

 Case: 18-41161 Document: 00515179516 Page: 3 Date Filed: 10/30/2019