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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR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

### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-60637 Summary Calendar

TONY TERRELL BUNTON Plaintiff-Appellant

v. CORRECTIONAL CORPORATION OF AMERICA; JODY BRADLEY, Superintendent at Delta Correctional Facility; DELTA CORRECTIONAL FACILITY; UNKNOWN JOHNSON, Facility at Delta Correctional Facility, in his individual and official capacities; UNK NOWN JONES, Sergeant at Delta Correctional Facility, in his individual and official capacities; UNKNOWN MCTIMS, Correctional Officer, in his individual and official capacities; UNKNOWN NORAL , Lieutenant at Delta Correctional Facility, in his individual and official capacities; GWEN PORTER, Medical Supervisor at Delta Correctional Facility, in his individual and of ficial capacities; UNKNOWN THOMAS, Case Manager at Delta Correctional Facility, in her individual and official capacities Defendants-Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi USDC No. 4:04-CV-354
Before BARKSDALE, GARZA and PRADO, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D August 12, 2008 Charles R. Fulbruge III ClerkNo. 07-60637

2 Tony Bunton, Mississippi prisoner # R5106, moves to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) to appeal the summary judgment dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit. Bunton argues that (1) he was injured as a result of being housed under constitutionally inadequate prison conditionswhen heslipped in a puddle caused by a roof leak and (2) he received constitutionally inadequate medical
care for his injury. By moving for leave to proceed IFP, Bunton is challenging the district court’s certification that his appeal was not taken in good faith. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997). Bunton, however, has not shown that the district court’s summary judgment dismissal presents a nonfrivolous issue. The summary judgment evidence did not objectively establish that Bunton’s prison conditions were inhumane or constituted an “extreme deprivation of any minimal civilized measure of life’s necessities.” See Gates v. Cook, 376 F.3d 323, 332 (5th Cir. 2004) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Even if it is assumed arguendo that the leaking roofconstituted a condition that posed a substantial risk of serious harm to Bunton, the evidence establ ished that the defendants took reasonable remedial measures and, thus, did not act with deliberate indifference. SeeFarmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 847 (1994). Bunton’s prison conditions did not, as a matter of law, rise to the level of inhumane treatment such that his Eighth Amendment rights were violated. Bunton’s contention that his injury was met with deliberate indifference and constitutionally i nadequate medical care is refuted by evidence that his medical complaints were not ignored, hewas seen by members the medical staff
on numerous occasions, and he was treated for those complaints with various medications. See Dominov. Texas Dep’t of Criminal Justice , 239 F.3d 752, 756 (5th Cir. 2001). Bunton’s allegations that the pain medication he was given was inadequate and that he should have received a bone scan to better diagnose his injury are merely disagreements over the type of care provided, which are not actionable under § 1983. See Varnado v. Lynaugh, 920 F.2d 320, 321 (5th Cir.No. 07-60637

3 1991). The summary judgment evidence establishes that Bunton’s medical care also was not violative of the Eighth Amendment. In light ofthe foregoing, Bunton’s appeal iswithout arguable merit and is dismissed. Baugh, 117 F.3d at 202 n.24; 5TH C IR

. R. 42.2. Our dismissal of Bunton’s appeal counts as a strike for purposes of 28 U .S.C. § 1915(g). See Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 387 (5th Cir. 1996). Bunton previously earned one strike in Bunton v. Hinds County Sheriff’s Dep’t, No. 3:01-CV-684 (S.D. Miss. Feb. 20, 2003). Bunton is cautioned that if he accumulates three strikes, he will no longer be allowed to proceed IFP in any civil action or appeal filed while he is detained or incarcerated in any facility unless he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. See § 1915(g). IFP DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.