
    David RAMOS, Plaintiff-Appellant v. Dr. Paul W. SHRODE; Investigator Rex Parsons; Investigator Javier Sosa; Technician Sal Telles; Unknown Staff, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 09-50012
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Nov. 17, 2009.
    David Ramos, El Paso, TX, pro se.
    David A. Talbot, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General, Law Enforcement Defense Division, Austin, TX, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before KING, STEWART, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

David Ramos, El Paso County Detention Facility inmate # 9291422, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint for failure to state a claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). The district court dismissed Ramos’s complaint pursuant to the abstention doctrine of Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 91 S.Ct. 746, 27 L.Ed.2d 669 (1971). Although Ramos argues the merits of his claims on appeal, he wholly fails to challenge the district court’s reason for dismissal. By failing to brief any argument challenging the district court’s reason for dismissal, Ramos has abandoned the only ground for appeal. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir.1993); Brinkmann v. Dallas County Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir.1987).

Ramos’s appeal is without arguable merit and therefore frivolous. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir.1983). Because it is frivolous, it is dismissed. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2. Ramos’s motion for the appointment of counsel is denied.

The district court’s dismissal of the complaint and this court’s dismissal of the appeal count as strikes for purposes of § 1915(g). See Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 387-88 (5th Cir.1996). Ramos has at least one previous strike. Ramos v. Samaniego, No. EP-07-CA-320-FM, 2008 WL 3539252, at *1 (W.D.Tex. Jul.24, 2008) (unpublished). Because he has accumulated three strikes, Ramos is now 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).

APPEAL DISMISSED; 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) BAR IMPOSED; MOTION DENIED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     