Case Name: Terrance L. OLIVER, Plaintiff-Appellant v. Travis MORRIS; Richard Thompson; Beverly Parker; Shirley Self; Wendell Warren, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-02-20
Citations: 266 F. App'x 353
Docket Number: No. 07-40408
Parties: Terrance L. OLIVER, Plaintiff-Appellant v. Travis MORRIS; Richard Thompson; Beverly Parker; Shirley Self; Wendell Warren, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before KING, WIENER, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 266
Pages: 353–354

Head Matter:
Terrance L. OLIVER, Plaintiff-Appellant v. Travis MORRIS; Richard Thompson; Beverly Parker; Shirley Self; Wendell Warren, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 07-40408
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Feb. 20, 2008.
Terrance L. Oliver, Beaumont, TX, pro se.
Before KING, WIENER, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Terrance L. Oliver, Texas prisoner # 739573, appeals the district court's dismissal of his pro se civil rights suit as frivolous and for failure to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). Oliver complained that after he was moved from safekeeping status to the general population, he was stabbed by another inmate. While Oliver was at the infirmary, Lt. Wendell Warren ordered him to return to his cell without medical care and prohibited the nurse from documenting Oliver's injury.
Oliver argues that the district court erred in not allowing him an opportunity to amend his complaint to exhaust administrative remedies against Lt. Warren and to state a claim against Lt. Warren for interfering with access to medical treatment. His first assertion is frivolous as the district court did not dismiss his claims against Lt. Warren for failure to exhaust.
The district court accepted Oliver's assertions regarding Lt. Warren's conduct; thus, no amendment regarding this conduct was necessary to the disposition of the case. Oliver does not suggest how he could have amended his complaint to overcome the district court's finding that his stab wound was a superficial pinpoint wound and, thus, not a serious medical need. Accordingly, Oliver has not shown that the district court erred in not allowing him to amend his complaint. See Jones v. Greninger, 188 F.3d 322, 326-27 (5th Cir.1999); Jacquez v. Procunier, 801 F.2d 789, 793 (5th Cir.1986).
Oliver does not brief any argument challenging the district court's conclusion that he failed to state a constitutional violation because his injury was not a serious medical need. Accordingly, he has abandoned any challenge to the dismissal of that claim. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir.1993). Oliver has not briefed and, thus, has abandoned any challenge to the dismissal of his claims against Michael Unit Warden Thompson and Officers Morris, Parker, and Self. See id.
Oliver's appeal is without arguable merit and is dismissed as frivolous. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir.1983); 5th Cir. R. 42.2. We warn Oliver that the district court's dismissal of his complaint and the dismissal of this appeal count as strikes under § 1915(g), and that if he accumulates three strikes, he will not be able 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 Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 388 (5th Cir.1996).
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.