THOMAS DEWAYNE ELLASON v. TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS DIVISION BRYAN COLLIER EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE SHAWN BLAIR JACK DOUGLAS FRANK HOKE LORIE DAVIS DIRECTOR TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS DIVISION OLIVER BELL (2017)

Thomas Dewayne Ellason, Texas prisoner # 600129, appeals the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against several directors and administrators of the Correctional Institutions Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ). The district court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim, noting that Ellason lacked standing to bring some claims and that he otherwise failed to make the factual allegations needed to show that the defendants violated his constitutional rights.

On appeal, Ellason repeats some of his extremely broad and generalized assertions of corruption, mismanagement, and unconstitutional conditions and operations within the TDCJ. But he fails to address the district court's particular reasons for dismissal and thus waives any issue relevant to this appeal. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993). Moreover, Ellason's arguments on appeal are, like his complaint, fatally vague and conclusional, being unsupported by legal and factual analysis that would show how these defendants were involved, either directly or through their implementation of specific policies, in the violation of Ellason's constitutional rights. See Audler v. CBC Innovis Inc., 519 F.3d 239, 255 (5th Cir. 2008); Rios v. City of Del Rio, Tex., 444 F.3d 417, 425 (5th Cir. 2006); Spiller v. City of Texas City, Police Dept., 130 F.3d 162, 167 (5th Cir. 1997).

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

The district court's dismissal of Ellason's § 1983 complaint for failure to state a claim counts as a strike under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Coleman v. Tollefson, 135 S. Ct. 1759, 1761 (2015); Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 387 (5th Cir. 1996). Ellason is WARNED that if he accumulates three strikes, he will not be allowed to proceed IFP in any civil action or appeal unless he “is under imminent danger of serious physical injury.” § 1915(g).

PER CURIAM:*