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, appea l s 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 stand a r d u sed to review a dismissal under Federal Ru le of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Hart v. Hairston , 343 F.3d 762, 763-64 (5th Cir. 2 003). U n i te d S ta te s C o u rt o f A p p ea l s F i ft h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D Novembe r 6, 2 012 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk

Purs uant to 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court hasd ete rm inedthat this op inion sho uld not * be publ ish ed and is not pr ece dent excep t unde r the lim ite d cir cum st ance s se t forth in 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5 .4. Case: 12-10154 Document: 00512044913 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/06/2012No. 12-10154

Hathcoat renews his allegation that the defendants violated his constitutional rights when they forced him to e at without utensils, using his bare hands, from May 2009 through March 2010. He contends that the district court erred in dismiss i n g 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 i njury. 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 evidenti a ry h earing, he makes no allegation that he could have demonstrated a physical i nj u ry 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 . Cu e l la r , 59 F.3d 523, 524 (5th Cir. 1995). Because Hathcoat has no t 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 Cn t y . Deputy Sheriff Abner , 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987). Ac c ordingly, 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.3 d 3 83, 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. See28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

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