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

No. 18

- 40644 Summary Calendar

JACKIE LEE BOYD , Plaintiff

- Appellant

v.
CAROL MONROE ; LANA BRUNETT ; GWENDOLYN FULLER ; SARAH COOK ; CHAD MOORE , Defendant s
- Appellee s

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 6:17

- CV

- 649

Before JOLLY, COSTA, and HO, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Jackie Lee Boyd, Texas prisoner # 1263639, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil suit for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. In his complaint, Boyd alleged that the defendants were deliberately indi fferent to his serious medical needs because they refused to escort him to the infirmary on several occasions to receive his

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED June 7, 2019 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 18-40644 Document: 00514987582 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/07/2019No. 18

- 40644

2 anti

- depression medications and, as a result, he had suicidal thoughts and tried to hang himself. Boyd’s motions to supplement his brief and to place his brief under seal are GRANTED. We review the d ismissal of a complaint for failure to state a claim de

novo

. Rogers v. Boatright , 709 F.3d 403, 407 (5th Cir. 2013). Boyd does not challenge the district court’s determination that th e defendants could not be liable under the doctrine of vicarious liability or respondeat superior. Accordingly, Boyd has abandoned his claims to the extent they rely on the theory of vicarious liability. See Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abne r , 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987). Regarding his deliberate indifference claim s , Boyd does not allege facts that establish that prison officials “refused to treat him, ignored his complaints, intentionally treated him incorrectly, or engaged in any sim ilar conduct that would clearly evince a wanton disregard for any serious medical needs.” Domino v. Texas Dep’t of Crim. Justice , 239 F.3d 752, 756 (5th Cir. 2001) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Boyd’s allegation s that he did not receive all the prescribed doses of his medications, at most, demonstrate negligence. See Gobert v. Caldwell , 463 F.3d 339, 346 (5th Cir. 2006); Hall v. Thomas , 190 F.3d 693, 697 (5th Cir. 1999); M ayweather v. Foti , 958 F.2d 91, 91

- 92 (5 th Cir. 1992) . Mere negligence is not sufficient to support a claim for deliberate indifference. See G obert , 463 F.3d at 346. Boyd complains that the district court relied on inaccurate information in dismissing his complaint . However, the court expl icitly stated that it would not consider those statements that Boyd represented were erroneous. Thus, contrary to Boyd’s assertion, the district court did not rely on any untrue information. Accordingly, the district court properly determined that Boyd f

ailed to state a claim. See A shcroft v. Iqbal , 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)

. Case: 18-40644 Document: 00514987582 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/07/2019No. 18

- 40644

3 The dist rict court’s dismissal of Boyd’s § 1983 complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A count s as a strike for purposes of § 1915(g). See Brown v. Megg, 857 F.3d 287, 290

- 92 (5th Cir. 2017); Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383,
385

- 87 (5th Cir. 1996), abrogated in part on other grounds by Coleman v. Tollefson, 135 S. Ct. 1759, 1762

- 63 (2015). Boyd is CAUTIONED that if he accumulates three strikes, he will n ot be able to proceed in forma pauperis in any civil action or appeal while he is incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. See § 1915(g). AFFIRMED; MOTIONS GRANTED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED. Case: 18-40644 Document: 00514987582 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/07/2019