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. 08-60646

Summary Calendar

ROGER JOHNSON

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

ROGER LEWIS, Captain

Defendant-Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 4:08-CV-24

Before DAVIS, GARZA, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Roger Johnson, Mississippi prisoner # 59930, appeals from the district

court’s dismissal with prejudice of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint for failure to

state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Because he has failed to brief

the dismissal of his claim regarding the denial of medical treatment, that issue

is deemed abandoned. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224–25 (5th Cir.

1993).

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

July 2, 2009

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 08-60646

2

Johnson argues that the district court failed to properly weigh and assess

the relevant factors regarding his claim of excessive force. Our review indicates

that all of those factors weigh against Johnson’s excessive-force claim. See

Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 5–7 (1992). The record shows that there was

a need for the application of force, Johnson ignored a clear warning regarding

the need for force, and Captain Roger Lewis’s use of force was a good-faith effort

to maintain or restore discipline. As to his claim regarding denial of access to

the courts, Johnson’s arguments that he may have been prejudiced by the loss

of certain legal materials fail to show the actual prejudice required to support

his claim. See Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 351–52 (1996).

Regarding his due process claim, Johnson argues for the first time on

appeal that the Rule Violation Report (RVR) issued by Captain Lewis, in

conjunction with two other RVRs Johnson received on other occasions, resulted

in his placement into D-custody and administrative lockdown. That argument

is not cognizable because it was not presented to the district court. See LeMaire

v. La. Dep’t of Transp. & Dev., 480 F.3d 383, 387 (5th Cir. 2007). Moreover, even

if we were to consider that argument, it fails to implicate a protected liberty

interest because Johnson’s placement into D-custody and administrative

lockdown do not present atypical, significant deprivations in relation to the

ordinary incidents of prison life. See Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 486 (1995);

Wilson v. Budney, 976 F.2d 957, 958 (5th Cir. 1992). As the district court’s

dismissal of Johnson’s complaint was therefore proper, the judgment of the

district court is affirmed. See Harris v. Hegmann, 198 F.3d 153, 156 (5th Cir.

1999).

The district court’s dismissal of Johnson’s complaint counts as a strike for

purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383,

387–88 (5th Cir. 1996). Johnson has already accumulated at least two other

strikes. See Johnson v. Dorsey, No. 4:08-CV-00023 (N.D. Miss. Apr. 4, 2008);

Johnson v. Presley, No. 4:07-CV-00105 (N.D. Miss. July 26, 2007). Johnson is
No. 08-60646

3

therefore barred from proceeding in forma pauperis pursuant to § 1915 while he

is incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he is under imminent danger

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

AFFIRMED; 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) BAR IMPOSED.