Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-16-10113/USCOURTS-ca5-16-10113-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 290
Nature of Suit: Other Real Property Actions
Cause of Action: 

---

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-10113

Summary Calendar 

CRAIG PITTMAN, Individually; KELLY KONACK PITTMAN, Individually, 

Plaintiffs–Appellants, 

versus 

SETERUS, INCORPORATED; 

FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION; 

KYANITE SERVICES, INCORPORATED; 

MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, 

 INCORPORATED; 

FIRST MANGUS FINANCIAL CORPORATION, 

Defendants–Appellees. 

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Northern District of Texas 

USDC No. 3:14-CV-3852

Before JONES, SMITH, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Craig and Kelly Pittman sued in state court to prevent foreclosure on 

 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

February 24, 2017

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 16-10113 Document: 00513888834 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/24/2017
No. 16-10113

2 

their house; defendants removed. Defendant Federal National Mortgage Association (“Fannie Mae”) counterclaimed for judicial foreclosure. After a series 

of motions by the defendants and recommendations by the magistrate judge, 

none of which was opposed or objected to by the Pittmans, the district court 

entered an amended judgment against the Pittmans on their claims and in 

favor of Fannie Mae on its counterclaim. The Pittmans filed two post-judgment 

motions, both of which the court denied. 

The Pittmans have filed an appellate brief and a motion to proceed in 

forma pauperis (“IFP”) on appeal; that motion is a challenge to the district 

court’s certification that the appeal is not in good faith. See Baugh v. Taylor, 

117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997). Our inquiry into good faith “is limited 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 and citation omitted). We may dismiss the appeal if it is apparent 

that it would be meritless. Baugh, 117 F.3d at 202 & n.24; see 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

The Pittmans’ submissions exclusively challenge the district court’s 

denial of their second post-judgment motion. We lack appellate jurisdiction to 

review that issue, because the Pittmans have not properly noticed for appeal 

the order denying their second-post-judgment motion. See Fiess v. State Farm

Lloyds, 392 F.3d 802, 806 (5th Cir. 2004). Because the remainder of their briefing fails to articulate any other reviewable error in the disposition of their 

claims or the counterclaim, the Pittmans have abandoned the critical issues of

their appeal. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224–25 (5th Cir. 1993); Brinkmann v. Dall. Cty. Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987). 

Thus, the appeal is without arguable merit and is frivolous. See 5TH CIR.

R. 42.2. The request to appeal IFP is DENIED, and the appeal is DISMISSED. 

See Baugh, 117 F.3d at 202 & n.24.

 Case: 16-10113 Document: 00513888834 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/24/2017