Plaintiff-Appellant Muqtasid A. Qadir, Texas prisoner # 743563, appeals the dismissal of his pro se, in forma pauperis (IFP) 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. In his complaint, he raised claims of failure to protect, retaliation, deliberate indifference, and flawed disciplinary proceedings.

We note as an initial matter that Qadir does not argue that the district court erred in finding that his challenge to his disciplinary proceedings was barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994). Thus, we deem this issue to be abandoned. Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993).

Qadir’s claims that he was denied medical treatment and that the defendants failed to protect him from other inmates fail because he has not shown that the defendants acted with deliberate indifference. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837, 114 S.Ct. 1970, 128 L.Ed.2d 811 (1994). Qadir’s claims of retaliation fail to set forth a chronology of events from which retaliation may plausibly be inferred. See Woods v. Smith, 60 F.3d 1161, 1166 (5th Cir. 1995).

The district court’s dismissal as frivolous of Qadir’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint counts as one strike for the purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Qadir is warned that if he accumulates three strikes, he may not proceed IFP in any civil action or appeal while he is incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he is in imminent danger of serious physical injury. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

AFFIRMED; STRIKE WARNING ISSUED.