Case Name: Warren Charles REED, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Fnu MOORE, Officer, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-12-17
Citations: 115 F. App'x 737
Docket Number: No. 04-10712
Parties: Warren Charles REED, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Fnu MOORE, Officer, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 115
Pages: 737–738

Head Matter:
Warren Charles REED, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Fnu MOORE, Officer, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 04-10712.
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Decided Dec. 17, 2004.
Warren Charles Reed, # 597494, Colorado City, TX, pro se.
Before KING, Chief Judge, and DeMOSS and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Warren Reed, Texas prisoner # 597494, has appealed the district court's order dismissing his civil rights complaint for failure to state a claim. Reed alleged in his complaint that he suffered injuries when the defendant backed a van, in which Reed was riding, into a metal pole. The negligent act of an official causing loss or injury will not, standing alone, state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Coon v. Ledbetter, 780 F.2d 1158, 1163 (5th Cir.1986).
Reed contends for the first time on appeal that Officer Moore acted with deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment by denying him medical treatment in order to "keep the accident from being documented." Although Reed did contend in the district court that he was denied medical treatment at the Robertson Unit at the time of the accident, as to Officer Moore, he alleged only that Moore told him not to complain if he wanted to reach his destination.
Reed's appeal is without arguable merit and is frivolous. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir.1983). Because the appeal is frivolous, it is DISMISSED. See 5th Cik. R. 42.2. We caution Reed that the dismissal of this appeal as frivolous counts as a "strike" under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), as does the district court's dismissal of his complaint. See Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 387-88 (5th Cir.1996). If Reed accumulates three "strikes" under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), he will not be permitted to proceed IFP 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.