IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-30408 Summary Calendar

JAMES HAWTHORNE,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

LEROY HOLIDAY,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana (98-CV-1595)

November 3, 2000

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

James Hawthorne, Louisiana prisoner #83561, appeals the

(e) dismissal, as frivolous, of his

complaint.

Hawthorne’s claim for compensation for the loss of his

personal property when he was transferred from one correctional

facility to another does not state a claim for the violation of a

constitutional right. See Marsh v. Jones,

(5th

Cir. 1995). “Section 1983 imposes liability for violations of

rights protected by the Constitution, not for violations of duties

* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. of care arising out of tort law. Remedy for the latter type of

injury must be sought in state court under traditional tort-law

principles.” Baker v. McCollan,

(1979) (emphasis

added); see also Daniels v. Williams,

(1986).

Hawthorne’s claim for damages resulting from mental or

emotional injury is precluded by 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(e) (“No Federal

civil action may be brought by a prisoner confined in a jail,

prison, or other correctional facility, for mental or emotional

injury suffered while in custody without a prior showing of

physical injury.”).

And, because Hawthorne has not briefed his alleged entitlement

to injunctive relief, he has abandoned that issue on appeal. See

Yohey v. Collins,

(5th Cir. 1993).

In sum, Hawthorne’s complaint was properly dismissed as

frivolous. See

(e). Therefore, this appeal is

without arguable merit and also frivolous. See Howard v. King,

(5th Cir. 1983) (defining frivolous appeal as one

without arguable merit). The appeal being frivolous, it is hereby

DISMISSED. 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

governs proceedings in forma pauperis, such

as the action at hand. Hawthorne is cautioned that the dismissal

of this appeal as frivolous counts as a “strike” under § 1915(g),

as does the district court’s dismissal of his complaint as

frivolous. See Adepegba v. Hammons,

(5th Cir.

1996) (“[B]oth the frivolous appeal and a lower court's dismissal

as frivolous count.”). Therefore, Hawthorne has two “strikes”

2 under § 1915(g). Hawthorne is further cautioned that if he

accumulates three such “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

(g).

AFFIRMED

3