IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-41246 Summary Calendar

VINCENT LILLY,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

GLENDA ADAMS, Eastern Region Director; LYNN AVANT, Facility Practice Manager; CLARENCE THOMAS, Medical Doctor/Director; LLOYD AUSCHBERGE,

Defendants-Appellees.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 9:01-CV-348 -------------------- March 21, 2003

Before DAVIS, DUHÉ, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:1

Vincent Lilly, Texas prisoner # 467486, appeals the

dismissal of his pro se, in forma pauperis, complaint filed

pursuant to

against Dr. Glenda Adams, Dr.

Clarence Thomas, Dr. Lynn Avant, and physician’s assistant Lloyd

Auschberge. The complaint alleged that the defendants acted with

deliberate indifference to Lilly’s medical needs and deprived him

of proper medical treatment in violation of the Eighth Amendment.

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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. The district court dismissed the complaint as frivolous pursuant

to

, and denied Lilly’s FED. R. CIV. P. 59(e)

motion to alter or amend the judgment.

Lilly contends that Thomas and Auschberge provided him with

inadequate dosages of prednisone to treat his sarcoidosis and

that he suffered ill effects as a result, but a prisoner’s

disagreement with prison officials regarding medical treatment

does not give rise to a

cause of action; nor

does unsuccessful medical treatment. Varnado v. Lynaugh,

(5th Cir. 1991). Lilly does not argue that the

district court erred in rejecting his other arguments; he

therefore has abandoned them. See Brinkmann v. Dallas County

Deputy Sheriff Abner,

(5th Cir. 1987).

This appeal is without arguable merit and is thus frivolous.

See Howard v. King,

(5th Cir. 1983).

Because the appeal is frivolous, it is DISMISSED. 5TH CIR.

R. 42.2.

The district court’s dismissal and this court’s dismissal

count as two strikes for purposes of

(g). See

generally Adepegba v. Hammons,

(5th Cir.

1996). Lilly is WARNED that if he accumulates three strikes he

may not 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).

2 APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTIONS WARNING ISSUED.

3