Case ID: f-appx_122/html/0696-01.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

Gregory D. ROWE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MENTAL HEALTH MENTAL RETARDATION, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 04-10953.
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Decided Nov. 30, 2004.
    Gregory D. Rowe, Fort Worth, TX, pro se.
    Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Gregory D. Rowe moves this court for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) in this appeal from the district court’s dismissal of his discrimination suit for failure to prosecute. Rowe failed to pay the filing fee after the district court determined that he should not be granted IFP status because Rowe had abused the IFP process by providing inconsistent information in his IFP declarations and filing frivolous suits in the past.

Rowe’s motion for IFP fails to address the district court’s rationale for dismissing the suit. Although this court liberally construes pro se briefs, see Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520, 92 S.Ct. 594, 30 L.Ed.2d 652 (1972), even pro se litigants must brief arguments in order to preserve them. Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir.1998). By failing to discuss the district court’s rationale for dismissing his complaint, Rowe has abandoned the issue, and it is the same as if he had not appealed the judgment. See Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir.1987).

Because Rowe has failed to demonstrate that he will raise a nonfrivolous issue on appeal, his motion to proceed IFP is denied. See Fed. R.App. P. 24(a); Carson v. Polley, 689 F.2d 562, 586 (5th Cir.1982). The appeal is without merit and is dismissed as frivolous. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir.1983); 5th Cir. R. 42.2.

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       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.