John Jones, Louisiana prisoner # 313554, moves for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) in his appeal of the dismissal, as legally frivolous and for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. By moving for IFP status, Jones is challenging the district court’s certification that his appeal is not taken in good faith. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997); Fed. R.App. P. 24(a). Jones’s brief on appeal makes only a conclusionary assertion that his claims have merit and does not address the dis *240 trict court’s reasons for its certification, which included thorough consideration of his claims by way of adoption of the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. See Baugh, 117 F.3d at 202. Accordingly, Jones’s challenge to the certification is deemed abandoned. See Brinkmann v. Dallas Cnty. Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987).

Jones has not shown that his appeal involves “legal points arguable on them merits (and therefore not frivolous).” Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Therefore, the motion for leave to proceed IFP on appeal is DENIED, and the appeal is DISMISSED as frivolous. See Baugh, 117 F.3d at 202 & n. 24; 5th Cir. R. 42.2.

The dismissal of the complaint as frivolous in the district court and the dismissal of the appeal count as strikes pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 385-87 (5th Cir. 1996). Jones previously accrued two strikes. See Jones v. West Baton Rouge Parish, 436 Fed.Appx. 319, 320 (5th Cir. 2011). Because he has now accumulated four strikes, he is BARRED from proceeding 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.” § 1915(g). We caution Jones that any additional frivolous appeals will invite the imposition of sanctions.