Case Name: Thomas P. BUDNICK, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. HAMPDEN COUNTY HOUSE OF CORRECTION, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-08-18
Citations: 105 F. App'x 601
Docket Number: No. 04-10320
Parties: Thomas P. BUDNICK, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. HAMPDEN COUNTY HOUSE OF CORRECTION, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, and PICKERING, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 105
Pages: 601–602

Head Matter:
Thomas P. BUDNICK, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. HAMPDEN COUNTY HOUSE OF CORRECTION, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 04-10320.
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Decided Aug. 18, 2004.
Thomas P. Budnick, Ludlow, MA, pro se.
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, and PICKERING, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Thomas P. Budnick, # 34-123286, a Massachusetts inmate housed at the Hampden County House of Corrections in Ludlow, Massachusetts, appeals the dismissal of his complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a) for lack of proper venue. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). We hold that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Budnick's complaint for lack of proper venue. See Lowery v. Estelle, 533 F.2d 265, 267 (5th Cir.1976).
Because the appeal lacks arguable merit, it is frivolous and is DISMISSED. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir.1983); 5th Cir. R. 42.2.
The dismissal of this appeal as frivolous 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). Budnick is cautioned that once he accumulates three strikes, he may not proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) in any civil action or appeal filed while he is incarcerated or detained in any facility. As Budnick is not proceeding IFP in the instant appeal, Bud-nick also is WARNED that sanctions may be imposed in response to future frivolous filings.
APPEAL DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS; SANCTIONS 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.