Thomas v. Lensing
Thomas v. Lensing
Opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-30658 Conference Calendar
REGINALD THOMAS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
C.M. LENSING; RHONDA KLING; RICHARD L. STALDER,
Defendants-Appellees.
-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana USDC No. 01-CV-256-B -------------------- December 11, 2001 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BARKSDALE, and STEWART, Circuit Judges
PER CURIAM:*
Reginald V. Thomas, Louisiana inmate #169499, appeals the
dismissal of his suit filed pursuant to
42 U.S.C. § 1983, arguing
that his due process rights were violated because his
administrative grievance was denied. Thomas’s suit fails to
state a cognizable § 1983 claim. See Daniel v. Ferguson,
839 F.2d 1124, 1128(5th Cir. 1988); Jackson v. Cain,
864 F.2d 1235, 1251(5th Cir. 1989).
Thomas’s appeal is without arguable merit and is frivolous.
See Howard v. King,
707 F.2d 215, 219-20(5th Cir. 1983).
* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. No. 01-30658 -2-
Because the appeal is frivolous, it is DISMISSED. See 5th Cir.
R. 42.2. The district court’s dismissal of Thomas’s suit counts
as one strike, and the dismissal of this appeal counts as one
strike for purposes of
28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Adepegba v.
Hammons,
103 F.3d 383, 387(5th Cir. 1996). Thomas is WARNED
that if he accumulates three strikes he will be barred from
proceeding IFP in any civil action or appeal brought in a United
States court unless he is under imminent danger of serious
physical injury. See
28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). His motion for the
appointment of counsel is DENIED.
Reference
- Status
- Unpublished