
    James Bell McCOY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Owen MURRAY; Lanette Linthicum, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice Medical Services; Pam Pace, Practice Manager, Michael Unit, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 14-40632.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    April 9, 2015.
    James Bell Mccoy, Tennessee Colony, TX, pro se.
    Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

James Bell McCoy, Texas prisoner # 1299701, moves for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) to appeal the district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1988 complaint pursuant to the three-strikes provision of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). ■ Under § 1915(g), a prisoner may not proceed IFP in an appeal of a judgment in a civil action if the prisoner has, on three or more prior occasions, while incarcerated, brought an action or appeal that was dismissed as frivolous or malicious or for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, unless the prisoner is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. § 1915(g).

McCoy does not dispute that he has three strikes but argues that the § 1915(g) bar should not apply because he is under imminent danger of a serious physical injury. In support of this contention, he states that he is in pain and has difficulty sleeping because of delays in receiving medication, and that there is a likelihood of unnecessary delay in receiving future medication from prison officials. McCoy has failed to demonstrate that he was under imminent danger of serious physical injury at the time that he filed his complaint in the district court, proceeded with his appeal, or moved to proceed IFP. See id.; Baños v. O’Guin, 144 F.3d 883, 884 (5th Cir.1998); Arvie v. Tanner, 518 Fed.Appx. 304, 304-05 (5th Cir.2013).

McCoy’s motion for leave to proceed IFP is DENIED, and the appeal is DISMISSED as frivolous. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2; Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 n. 24 (5th Cir.1997). McCoy’s motion to expedite the ruling on his motion for leave to proceed IFP is DENIED as moot. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     