Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-14-20686/USCOURTS-ca5-14-20686-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Benedict Emesowum
Appellant
Christmas Eve Morgan
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-20686

Summary Calendar

BENEDICT EMESOWUM,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

CHRISTMAS EVE MORGAN,

Defendant-Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:14-CV-78

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, ELROD, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Benedict Emesowum appeals the dismissal for failure to state a claim of 

his amended complaint raising 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985 claims as well as 

claims for invasion of privacy and defamation of character under Texas law. 

See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). We review a dismissal for failure to state a 

claim under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) de novo, using the same standard of review 

applicable to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) dismissals. Harris v. 

 

* 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

December 23, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 14-20686 Document: 00513320551 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/23/2015
No. 14-20686

2

Hegmann, 198 F.3d 153, 156 (5th Cir. 1999). “To survive a motion to dismiss, 

a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a 

claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 

(2009) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). “[R]egardless of 

whether the plaintiff is proceeding pro se or is represented by counsel, 

conclusory allegations or legal conclusions masquerading as factual 

conclusions will not suffice to prevent a motion to dismiss.” Taylor v. Books A 

Million, Inc., 296 F.3d 376, 378 (5th Cir. 2002) (internal quotation marks and 

citations omitted).

Emesowum does not address the district court’s reasons for dismissing 

his claims with any specificity. See 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). We will not consider his arguments, which are bereft of 

citation to the record or to legal authority, that the district court was biased, 

that it should have granted his motion for recusal, and that it erred by sua 

sponte ordering him to show cause why his case should not be dismissed. See 

FED. R. APP. P. 28(a)(8); Yohey, 985 F.2d at 225. Given that motions for default 

judgment are disfavored, Lindsey v. Prive Corp., 161 F.3d 886, 893 (5th Cir. 

1998), Emesowum fails to show that the district court erred by denying his 

default judgment motion. See Lewis v. Lynn, 236 F.3d 766, 767-68 (5th Cir. 

2001).

Emesowum’s appeal is DISMISSED as frivolous pursuant to Fifth 

Circuit Rule 42.2. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 n.24 (5th Cir. 1997). 

His outstanding motions are DENIED. Emesowum is CAUTIONED that 

future frivolous or repetitive filings in this court will result in the imposition 

of sanctions, including dismissal, monetary sanctions, and restrictions on his 

 Case: 14-20686 Document: 00513320551 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/23/2015
No. 14-20686

3

ability to file pleadings in this court or any court subject to this court’s 

jurisdiction.

 Case: 14-20686 Document: 00513320551 Page: 3 Date Filed: 12/23/2015