PER CURIAM:
Albert Harris, Texas prisoner # 677922, appeals the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and (ii), as frivolous and for failure to state a claim on which relief could be granted. The district court did not err.in dismissing the complaint, as Harris’s claims surrounding his initial parole interview lacked an arguable basis in law or contained insufficient factual matter to state a plausible claim for relief. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678-79, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009); Sam ford v. Dretke, 562 F.3d 674, 678 (5th Cir. 2009). Accordingly, the judgment is AFFIRMED.
The dismissal of Harris’s complaint as frivolous and for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted counts as a strike under § 1915(g). See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g); Coleman v. Tollefson, — U.S. -, 135 S.Ct. 1759, 1763-64, 191 L.Ed.2d 803 (2015); Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 387-88 (5th Cir. 1996). Harris is WARNED that if he accumulates three strikes, he will not be allowed to 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).
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, tire court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.