IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-60321 Summary Calendar

JOHN DAVID MILLSAP,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

KENNETH SKIFFER, JOHN BOOTH, WILLIE CATCHING, VERON JORDAN, MISHEILA JOHNSON, JOHN DOE, Mail Deliverer, JOHN DOE, Mail Inspector, JOHN DOE,Law Library Director,

Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi USDC No.3:96-CV-675-WS - - - - - - - - - - February 2, 2000

Before JONES, DUHÉ, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:1

John David Millsap, Mississippi prisoner #31267, appeals the

district court’s dismissal of his

action as

frivolous pursuant to

(d). Millsap argues that the

district court abused its discretion in dismissing his claim that

he was unconstitutionally deprived of personal property found in

his cell during a prison “shakedown,” and of personal mail that he

alleges was confiscated from the mail room. Whether these alleged

property deprivations were negligent or intentional, they cannot

1 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. form the basis of a due process claim in a § 1983 action. See

Daniels v. Williams,

(1986)(negligent); Hudson

v. Palmer,

(1984)(intentional). The remainder

of Millsap’s arguments are unsubstantiated allegations for which he

was unable to establish a factual basis during two separate

hearings. The district court did not abuse its discretion in

dismissing Millsap’s complaint as frivolous. Siglar v. Hightower,

(5th Cir. 1997).

Millsap’s appeal is without arguable merit and is frivolous.

See Howard v. King,

(5th Cir. 1983). Because

the appeal is frivolous, it is DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

Millsap is hereby informed that the dismissal of this appeal as

frivolous counts as a strike for purposes of

(g),

in addition to the strike for the district court’s dismissal. See

Adepegba v. Hammons,

(5th Cir. 1996)

(“[D]ismissals as frivolous in the district courts or the court of

appeals count [as strikes] for the purposes of [§ 1915(g)].”). We

caution Millsap that once he accumulates three strikes, he may not

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

(g).

APPEAL DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS.