UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-6903

WARREN CHASE,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

GOVERNOR MARTIN J. O'MALLEY; LIEUTENANT ANTHONY G. BROWN; 

SECRETARY GARY D. MAYNARD; ACTING CHIEF JUDY PRESTON; RACHEL 

QUEEN,

Defendants - Appellees.

No. 11-7192

WARREN CHASE,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

WARDEN,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the District 

of Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. 

(1:11-cv-01414-CCB; 1:08-cv-01790-CCB)

Submitted: February 10, 2012 Decided: February 17, 2012

Before AGEE, DAVIS, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
2

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Warren Chase, Appellant Pro Se. Stephanie Judith Lane Weber, 

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, 

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
3

PER CURIAM:

In these consolidated appeals, Warren Chase appeals a 

district court order dismissing his complaint because he did not 

show that he was in imminent danger of serious physical injury

(No. 11-6903), see 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) (2006), and an order 

dismissing complaints that were consolidated by the court (No. 

11-7192). We affirm.

No. 11-6903

This court reviews de novo a district court’s finding 

that the “three striker” did not show that he was in imminent 

danger of serious physical injury in order to proceed under 28 

U.S.C. § 1915(g) (2006). Andrews v. King, 398 F.3d 1113, 1118 

(9th Cir. 2005); Ciarpaglini v. Saini, 352 F.3d 328, 330 (7th 

Cir. 2003). Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, a prisoner

who brings a civil action or an appeal who has had three or more 

actions or appeals dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or for 

failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, may 

not proceed without prepayment of fees unless he is “under 

imminent danger of serious physical injury.” 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(g). It is undisputed that Chase is a “three striker.” 

We note that “the requisite imminent danger of serious 

physical injury must exist at the time the complaint or the 

appeal is filed . . . . Moreover, the exception focuses on the 
4

risk that the conduct complained of threatens continuing or 

future injury, not on whether the inmate deserves a remedy for 

past misconduct.” Martin v. Shelton, 319 F.3d 1048, 1050 (8th 

Cir. 2003) (citations omitted); Banos v. O’Guin, 144 F.3d 883, 

885 (5th Cir. 1998) (imminent danger must exist at the time the 

plaintiff files the complaint). In Martin, the court stated 

that an inmate must make “specific fact allegations of ongoing 

serious physical injury, or of a pattern of misconduct 

evidencing the likelihood of imminent serious physical injury.” 

Martin, 319 F.3d at 1050. 

We have reviewed the record and affirm the district 

court’s order. We conclude Chase did not make specific 

allegations that would support a finding that when he filed his 

complaint he was in imminent danger of serious physical injury. 

No. 11-7192

Chase filed a series of complaints and other filings 

that were consolidated by the district court. He alleged that 

his food was poisoned by prison guards, that he was being denied 

his meals and that his incoming and outgoing legal mail was 

being destroyed by prison authorities or being tampered with. 

The district court dismissed the allegations regarding the 

prison meals under the doctrine of res judicata, because Chase 

raised these allegations in a prior complaint dealing with the 
5

same time period. The court also found that Chase’s allegations 

concerning his mail were without merit.

This court limits review to issues raised in the 

informal brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Issues not raised in 

the brief are considered abandoned. Edwards v. City of 

Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231, 241 n.6 (4th Cir. 1999) (concluding 

that issues not raised in opening brief are deemed abandoned).

In his pro se informal brief, Chase does not challenge 

the finding that he previously litigated his claim regarding the 

treatment of his meals to his detriment. Accordingly, we 

consider the issue abandoned.

We also conclude that the district court did not err

in finding that Chase’s claim regarding his legal mail was 

without merit. In order to establish a claim of denial of 

access to the courts, an inmate cannot rely on conclusory 

allegations but must instead allege an actual injury or specific 

harm or prejudice that has resulted from the denial. Cochran v. 

Morris, 73 F.3d 1310, 1317 (4th Cir. 1996) (en banc). Chase 

failed to allege any actual injury resulting from the alleged 

conduct of prison authorities with regard to his legal mail. 

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s orders. 

We also deny as moot the motion to consolidate. We also deny 

the motion for a TRO/Protective order. We dispense with oral 

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 
6

presented in the materials before the court and argument would 

not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED