to whether the appeal involves legal points arguable on their merits (and therefore not frivolous).” Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir.1983) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Fitzgerald has not shown that he will raise a nonfrivolous issue on appeal. The district court denied his IFP motion and stated that his case was closed. Because Fitzgerald’s case was closed, he has not shown that the district court erred in denying his IFP motion -without addressing the merits of his claims or providing him with notice and an opportunity to amend his complaint. Further, Fitzgerald does not have a constitutional right to file an action against Merck for injuries allegedly caused by the drug Vioxx. See Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 356, 116 S.Ct. 2174, 135 L.Ed.2d 606 (1996) (<HOLDING>). As the district court pointed out, Fitzgerald
holding prisoners constitutional right of access to courts guarantees only a reasonably adequate opportunity to file nonfrivolous legal claims challenging their convictions or conditions of confinement recognizing a liberty interest in reasonably safe conditions of confinement holding that prisoners have a constitutional right to meaningful access to courts and examining the facility as a whole to determine whether such access was sufficient recognizing right of prisoners to seek relief under 42 usc  1983 for denial of access to the courts holding that mentally retarded individuals who are involuntarily committed to a state institution have a constitutional right to reasonably safe conditions of confinement under the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment because pjersons who have been involuntarily committed are entitled to more considerate treatment and conditions of confinement than criminals whose conditions of confinement are designed to punish