* 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should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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. 07-10654

Summary Calendar

RALPH LYDELL VEASEY,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT NO 2, Dallas County Texas; DARRELL L.

CLEMENTS; JOAN L. MARSHALL,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:07-CV-139

Before SMITH, BARKSDALE, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Ralph Lydell Veasey, federal prisoner # 14596-076, appeals the district

court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action as frivolous and as seeking

monetary damages against defendants who are immune from damages. In

addition, he appeals the district court’s denial of his FED. R. CIV.P. 60(b) motion

challenging the dismissal of his complaint. Veasey argues that the defendants

were not immune from damages because they had not taken the oaths required

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

April 4, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 07-10654

2

by the Texas Constitution and therefore were not proper state officials. For the

same reason, he asserts that his complaint was not barred by Heck v. Humphrey,

512 U.S. 477 (1994).

Veasey failed to articulate a violation of a federal right, save a conclusory

allegation that the appellees’ actions violated his due process rights. Merely

alleging a constitutional violation or making a conclusory allegation is

insufficient. Kinash v. Callahan, 129F.3d 736, 738 (5th Cir. 1997). Accordingly,

Veasey’s complaint was frivolous. See Gonzales v. Wyatt, 157 F.3d 1016, 1019

(5th Cir. 1998).

Additionally, Veasey’s complaint challenged his conviction and

imprisonment without alleging that his conviction had been reversed, expunged,

or otherwise called into question. Accordingly, it was barred. See Heck, 512 U.S.

at 486-87. As Veasey’s complaint was frivolous, we need not reach the district

court’s alternative determination that Veasey’s claims were barred by absolute

immunity. Because Veasey does not address the reasoning for the denial of his

Rule 60(b) motion, he has waived any challenge to that denial. See Brinkmann

v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987).

Veasey’s appeal is without arguable merit. Accordingly, it is dismissed as

frivolous. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2; Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir.

1983).

Veasey is cautioned that the dismissal of this appeal as frivolous and the

district court’s dismissal of the complaint as frivolous both count as strikes

under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See generally Adepegba v. Hammons, No. 95-31249,

1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 41289, at *11-*15 (5th Cir. Dec. 31, 1996). He is

cautioned thatif he accumulates three strikes under § 1915(g), he will be unable

to proceed in forma pauperis in any civil action or appeal filed while he is

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

serious physical injury. See § 1915(g).

APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.