Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-14-20458/USCOURTS-ca5-14-20458-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Benedict Emesowum
Appellant
Gar Associates, L.P.
Appellee
Hooverslovascek, L.L.P.
Appellee
Terri Llagostera
Appellee
Meadows Southwest Apartments
Appellee
Christmas Eve Morgan
Appellee
Oak Leaf Management
Appellee
Pitt Southwest Investors, Incorporated
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-20458

Summary Calendar

BENEDICT EMESOWUM,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

TERRI LLAGOSTERA; MEADOWS SOUTHWEST APARTMENTS; GAR 

ASSOCIATES, L.P.; PITT SOUTHWEST INVESTORS, INCORPORATED; 

OAK LEAF MANAGEMENT; HOOVERSLOVASCEK, L.L.P.; CHRISTMAS 

EVE MORGAN,

Defendants-Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:13-CV-2818

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, ELROD, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Benedict Emesowum appeals the judgment of the district court, which 

dismissed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) his amended 

civil complaint raising claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, 3604, 3617, and 

3631. He also brought state-law claims for gross negligence, breach of fiduciary 

 

* 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 31, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 14-20458 Document: 00513326641 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/31/2015
No. 14-20458

2

duty, and breach of contract. This court reviews a dismissal under Rule 

12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim de novo. Thompson v. City of Waco, 764 

F.3d 500, 502 (5th Cir. 2014). “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) 

(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) (quotation marks and citations omitted).

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

his claims with any specificity. See Brinkmann v. Dall. Cnty. Deputy Sheriff 

Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987); Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 225 

(5th Cir. 1993). He fails to show that the district court abused its discretion by 

denying his first motion for a default judgment since the defendants who had 

been served had timely filed answers to his complaint. See Lewis v. Lynn, 236 

F.3d 766, 767–68 (5th Cir. 2001). We need not consider the argument that the 

defendants violated Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(b) by filing numerous 

pleadings to harass Emesowum since he did not raise this issue in the district 

court. See Jennings v. Owens, 602 F.3d 652, 657 n.7 (5th Cir. 2010).

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED and 

Emesowum’s motion for transcripts is 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 ability to file pleadings in this court or any court subject to 

this court’s jurisdiction.

 Case: 14-20458 Document: 00513326641 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/31/2015