IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-10154

Summary Calendar

DARREN WILLIAM HATHCOAT,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

DON COPELAND, Gray County Sheriff; SHELLY MCCARN, 

Gray County Sheriff Office Administrator; LISA PARMEN, 

Gray County Sheriff Office Assistant Administrator,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 2:11-CV-52

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, OWEN, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Darren William Hathcoat, Texas prisoner # 1630257, appeals the

dismissal for failure to state a claim of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights

complaint. We review the dismissal de novo, applying the standard used to

review a dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Hart v.

Hairston, 343 F.3d 762, 763-64 (5th Cir. 2003). 

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

November 6, 2012

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

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.

Case: 12-10154 Document: 00512044913 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/06/2012
No. 12-10154

Hathcoat renews his allegation that the defendants violated his

constitutional rights when they forced him to eat without utensils, using his bare

hands, from May 2009 through March 2010. He contends that the district court

erred in dismissing his lawsuit without first giving him the opportunity to

amend the complaint and without holding an evidentiary hearing.

The district court determined that Hathcoat’s claim failed under 42 U.S.C.

§ 1997e(e) because he sought recovery for mental anguish without any physical

injury. Hathcoat makes no argument challenging the district court’s

determination, nor does he otherwise assert that he in fact suffered any physical

injury. Further, while he complains about the failure to afford him an amended

complaint or evidentiary hearing, he makes no allegation that he could have

demonstrated a physical injury through an amended complaint or hearing. 

Although this court applies less stringent standards to parties proceeding pro se

than to parties represented by counsel and liberally construes the briefs of pro

se litigants, pro se parties must still brief the issues and reasonably comply with

the requirements of Rule 28 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. Grant

v. Cuellar, 59 F.3d 523, 524 (5th Cir. 1995). Because Hathcoat has not

challenged the district court’s reason for dismissing his § 1983 action, he has

abandoned the only issue before this court. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222,

224-25 (5th Cir. 1993); Brinkmann v. Dallas Cnty. Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813

F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987). Accordingly, the district court’s judgment is

AFFIRMED.

This court’s affirmance of the district court’s dismissal 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). Hathcoat 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 in imminent

danger of serious physical injury. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). 

2

Case: 12-10154 Document: 00512044913 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/06/2012