
    Stephen E. NICHOLSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. McLENNAN COUNTY COMMISSIONER’S COURT; Larry Lynch, Sheriff; Johnny Mynar; Medical Department, McLennan County Sheriff's Department; Rod Ryan, Dr.; Unnamed Nurses; Officer Woodson, also known as FNU Woodson; Sergeant Ward, also known as FNU Ward; Corporal Blythe, also known as FNU Blythe; Unnamed Officers, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 04-50356.
    Conference Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Decided Aug. 18, 2004.
    Stephen E. Nicholson, Huntsville, TX, pro se.
    
      Charles Alfred Mackenzie, Michael W. Dixon, Haley & Davis, Waco, TX, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, and PICKERING, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Stephen E. Nicholson, Texas prisoner # 1126089, seeks leave to proceed in for-ma pauperis (IFP) in this appeal from the district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for failure to state a claim on which relief could be granted. The district court denied Nicholson’s motion for leave to proceed IFP on appeal and certified that the appeal was not taken in good faith. Nicholson challenges the district court’s certification decision pursuant to Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir.1997). Nicholson has not addressed the merits of the district court’s certification decision. Accordingly, his request for IFP status is DENIED, and his appeal is DISMISSED as frivolous. See Baugh, 117 F.3d at 202 n. 24; 5th Cir. R. 42.2.

Nicholson is cautioned that the district court’s dismissal of his complaint and this court’s dismissal of his appeal count as two strikes under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 385-87 (5th Cir.1996). If Nicholson accrues three strikes, he will not be able to proceed 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. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

IFP MOTION DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTIONS WARNING ISSUED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     