Case Name: Mark Dane ROGERS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. William RICHARDSON; Debbie Graham; Linda Keeton; Bobby Bobbitt, Defendants-Appellees; Mark Dane Rogers, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Gary Thaggard; Joe Thornton; H. Ragsdale, DefendantsAppellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-12-17
Citations: 115 F. App'x 757
Docket Number: No. 03-60625
Parties: Mark Dane ROGERS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. William RICHARDSON; Debbie Graham; Linda Keeton; Bobby Bobbitt, Defendants-Appellees. Mark Dane Rogers, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Gary Thaggard; Joe Thornton; H. Ragsdale, DefendantsAppellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 115
Pages: 757–757

Head Matter:
Mark Dane ROGERS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. William RICHARDSON; Debbie Graham; Linda Keeton; Bobby Bobbitt, Defendants-Appellees. Mark Dane Rogers, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Gary Thaggard; Joe Thornton; H. Ragsdale, DefendantsAppellees.
No. 03-60625.
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Decided Dec. 17, 2004.
Mark Dane Rogers, Parchman, MS, pro se.
Roy Noble Lee, Jr, Lee & Lee, Forest, MS, Charles Hyde Weissinger, Jr, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before KING, Chief Judge, and DeMOSS and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Mark Dane Rogers, now Mississippi prisoner # 41282, appeals from the magistrate judge's judgment for the defendants in his consolidated civil-rights lawsuits, filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that he was deprived of proper medical care while he was a pretrial detainee. His sole argument on appeal is that the magistrate judge utilized an incorrect legal standard when considering his claims. Examination of the record shows that the magistrate judge used the same legal standard asserted by Rogers in the instant appeal.
The instant appeal is without arguable merit and is thus frivolous. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir.1983). Accordingly, the appeal is DISMISSED. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2.
The dismissal of this appeal counts as a strike for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 387-88 (5th Cir.1996). We caution Rogers that once he accumulates three strikes, he may not 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 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.
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.