Miguel Madrigal v. Gary Currie , 582 F. App'x 417 ( 2014 )

Case: 14-40105 Document: 00512775193 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/19/2014
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 14-40105 FILED
Summary Calendar September 19, 2014
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
MIGUEL ANGEL MADRIGAL,
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
GARY CURRIE; OLIVER J. BELL; BRAD LIVINGSTON; BRYAN COLLIER,
Defendants-Appellees
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 2:13-CV-321
Before JONES, BENAVIDES, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
Miguel Angel Madrigal, Texas prisoner # 580267, filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983
complaint for damages and injunctive relief against several employees of the
Texas Department of Criminal Justice wherein he alleged that they failed to
protect him from an assault during which he was seriously injured by his
cellmate. He also alleged that his property was lost or stolen. Madrigal
consented to proceed before the magistrate judge, who held a hearing pursuant
* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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.
Case: 14-40105 Document: 00512775193 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/19/2014
No. 14-40105
to Spears v. McCotter, 766 F.2d 179 (5th Cir. 1985). The magistrate judge
dismissed the complaint with prejudice for failure to state a claim pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1). Our review is de novo.
See Black v. Warren, 134 F.3d 732, 733-34 (5th Cir. 1998).
Although this court construes the briefs of pro se litigants liberally, an
appellant’s brief must contain an argument on the issues that are raised so
that this court may know what action of the district court is complained of. Al-
Ra’id v. Ingle, 69 F.3d 28, 31 (5th Cir. 1995). Conclusory statements of the
type found in Madrigal’s brief are insufficient, even for a pro se appellant. See
Brinkmann v. Dallas Cnty Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir.
1987). Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed as frivolous. 5TH CIR. R. 42.2;
Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983). This dismissal counts
as a strike under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), and Madrigal 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 § 1915(g);
Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 387-88 (5th Cir. 1996).
APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.
2