United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit ____________

No. 23-60044

Summary Calendar

____________

Chaz Pinkston, 

Plaintiff—Appellant, 

versus

Jeannette Pointe; Premier Supply Link, L.L.C., 

Defendants—Appellees. 

______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Southern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 5:22-CV-17 

______________________________

Before Haynes, Willett, and Duncan, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Chaz Pinkston, Mississippi prisoner # 148934, moves for leave to 

proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal from the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983 complaint. In his IFP motion and brief, Pinkston conclusorily asserts 

that the district court treated his case carelessly and/or perfunctorily when 

it: (1) “dismissed his in forma pauperis complaint (for appeal) as legally and 

_____________________

* This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

September 22, 2023

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 23-60044 Document: 00516904737 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/22/2023
No. 23-60044

2

factually frivolous without understanding or paying attention to the actual 

facts and legal theories in the complaint;” (2) “granted summary judgment 

without looking closely enough at the record to see that there were genuine 

material factual disputes;” (3) denied him a fair opportunity to be heard; and 

(4) erred by refusing to allow him to receive the discovery that he requested. 

He argues that his sworn, particularized declarations and affidavits “were 

completely disregarded though they highlighted and created genuine 

material factual disputes as they are factual in truth plus factual in law despite 

zero documentary evidence at times to support or corroborate them.” 

Pinkston’s challenges to the adequacy of the district court’s 

consideration of the record and the court’s determinations regarding his 

discovery requests are conclusory and are belied by the record. Although 

Pinkston asserts that his appeal has been filed in good faith for the reasons set 

forth in his district court pleadings, such incorporation by reference is not 

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

Pinkston has failed to meaningfully brief any challenge to the district court’s 

reasons for denying his claims and granting the defendants’ motions for 

summary judgment. As a result, he has abandoned any challenge to these 

determinations. See Yohey, 985 F.2d at 224-25; Brinkmann v. Dallas Cnty. 

Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987). Because he fails to 

show that his appeal raises a nonfrivolous issue, his motion to proceed IFP is 

DENIED, and the appeal is DISMISSED as frivolous. See Baugh v. 

Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 n.24 (5th Cir. 1997); Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 

220 (5th Cir. 1983); 5th Cir. R. 42.2. 

This dismissal of this appeal as frivolous counts as a strike under 28 

U.S.C. § 1915(g). See McGarrah v. Alford, 783 F.3d 584, 584 (5th Cir. 2015). 

Pinkston is WARNED that if he accumulates three strikes, he will be barred 

from proceeding IFP in any civil action or appeal filed while he is incarcerated 

Case: 23-60044 Document: 00516904737 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/22/2023
No. 23-60044

3

or detained in any facility unless he is under imminent danger of serious 

physical injury. See id. at 585; § 1915(g).

Case: 23-60044 Document: 00516904737 Page: 3 Date Filed: 09/22/2023