Case ID: f-appx_143/html/0577-01.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

Loretta OSBORNE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SBC DISABILITY INCOME PLAN; SBC Communications Inc.; Sedgwick C.M.S., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 04-20740.
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Decided July 22, 2005.
    Shira R. Yoshor, Baker Botts, Houston, TX, Jaime Mata, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before JOLLY, DAVIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Loretta Osborne has filed a motion in this court to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal from the dismissal of her Employee Retirement and Income Security Act (ERISA) complaint. The district court granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment and dismissed Osborne’s claims after finding that the decision to deny Osborne long term disability benefits was not arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion. The district court denied Osborne’s motion to proceed IFP on appeal and certified that her appeal was not taken in good faith.

Osborne’s financial affidavit establishes that she is unable to pay the costs of her appeal without undue hardship or deprivation of life’s necessities. See Adkins v. E.I. Du Pont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339, 69 S.Ct. 85, 93 L.Ed. 43 (1948). However, Osborne does not address the reasons for the district court’s dismissal of her complaint. Osborne has failed to establish a nonfrivolous ground for appeal. See Carson v. Polley, 689 F.2d 562, 586 (5th Cir.1982); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). Her IFP motion is DENIED. As the appeal contains no nonfrivolous issues, it is DISMISSED. Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir.1983); 5th Cm. R. 42.2. Osborne’s motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.