Case ID: f-appx_197/html/0343-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM: \n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Jesus Mendoza MALDONADO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Michael James LINDQUIST; Christopher T. Lohden; Diane K. Smedley; Ruth Watkins, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 05-20257
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Sept. 6, 2006.
    Jesus Mendoza Maldonado, Mission, TX, pro se.
    Victor Rodriguez, Jr., Ellis, Koeneke & Ramirez, McAllen, TX for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before JONES, Chief Judge, and KING and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Jesus Mendoza Maldonado, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his complaint for failure to state a claim. On appeal, Maldonado challenges the district court’s authority to dismiss his complaint but does not challenge the district court’s basis for dismissing his complaint. The district court had the authority to dismiss Maldonado’s complaint, and Maldonado’s failure to identify an error in the district court’s analysis is the same as if he had not appealed the judgment. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2); Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir.1987); Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 225 (5th Cir.1993); 18 U.S.C. § 1915(e). Further, conclusional assertions are not sufficient to establish a retaliation claim. See Woods v. Smith, 60 F.3d 1161, 1166 (5th Cir.1995) (to establish retaliation claim, one must produce either direct evidence of a retaliatory motive or at least “allege a chronology of events from which retaliation may plausibly be inferred”) (internal quotations and citation omitted).

As Maldonado’s appeal is without arguable merit, it is dismissed as frivolous. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2. Maldonado is warned that any future frivolous filings will subject him to sanctions.

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       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited, circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.