* 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should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-60412

Summary Calendar

ANTHONY J HUDSON

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

CITY OF LAUREL

Defendant-Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 2:06-CV-179

Before WIENER, STEWART, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Anthony J. Hudson filed a civil suit, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, against

the City of Laurel, Mississippi. He argued that the City of Laurel was liable for

his false arrest and malicious prosecution which arose from a dispute with a

private citizen. The district court granted the defendant’s motion for summary

judgment and dismissed Hudson’s federal claims with prejudice. Hudson’s state

law claims were dismissed without prejudice. Hudson now seeks to proceed in

forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

August 25, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 07-60412

2

To proceed IFP on appeal, Hudson must show that he is a pauper, and he

must raise a nonfrivolous issue. See Jackson v. Dallas Police Dep’t, 811 F.2d

260, 261 (5th Cir. 1986). The record and financial affidavit submitted by Hudson

in support of his motion reflect that Hudson satisfies the financial criteria to

proceed IFP. However, Hudson has failed to show that he will raise a

nonfrivolous issue on appeal.

The district court noted that Hudson filed his complaint against the City

of Laurel and did not make allegations against Judge Cecilia Arnold in her

individual capacity. The district court determined that Hudson failed to show

thatthe City of Laurel implemented a “custom or policy” which led to the alleged

deprivations of his constitutional rights. The district court thus determined that

the city could not be held liable under § 1983. The district court further

determined that any claims against Judge Cecilia Arnold would be barred by the

doctrine of judicial immunity. Hudson does not challenge the district court’s

determinations or reasoning. Accordingly, he has abandoned the issues on

appeal. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993); Brinkmann

v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987).

Hudson is incorrect in his assertion that the district court did not address

his conspiracy claim. The district court determined that there was nothing in

the record to show that Judge Cecilia Arnold conspired with anyone to violate

Hudson’s constitutional rights. Hudson’s claims of a conspiracy are conclusional

and insufficientto support a conspiracy claim. See Rodriguez v. Neeley, 169 F.3d

220, 222 (5th Cir. 1999); Hale v. Harney, 786 F.2d 688, 690 (5th Cir. 1986).

Accordingly, the district court did not err in granting the defendant’s

motion for summary judgment and declining to exercise supplemental

jurisdiction over Hudson’s state law claims. See Little v. Liquid Air Corp., 37

F.3d 1069, 1075 (5th Cir. 1994); Bass v. Parkwood Hosp., 180 F.3d 234, 246 (5th

Cir. 1999). Therefore, Hudson’s request for leave to proceed IFP is DENIED and

his appeal is DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.