United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit ____________

No. 23-20355

Summary Calendar

____________

Chemeka N. Alexander, 

Plaintiff—Appellant,

versus

McCarthy & Holthus L.L.P.; Sandra L. Dasigenis; 

Michael Minicilli; Guild Mortgage Company; Ryse 

Investments L.L.C., 

Defendants—Appellees.

______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:22-CV-2920

______________________________

Before Elrod, Haynes, and Douglas, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Chemeka N. Alexander seeks to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal 

from the dismissal of her claims against defendants McCarthy & Holthus 

L.L.P., Guild Mortgage Company, and Ryse Investments L.L.C. The district 

court determined that Alexander’s amended complaint failed to state a claim 

_____________________

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

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

March 5, 2024

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 23-20355 Document: 57-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/05/2024
No. 23-20355

2

upon which relief can be granted, and it dismissed her claims pursuant to 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). 

By moving to proceed IFP in this court, Alexander challenges the 

district court’s certification that her appeal is not taken in good faith. See 

Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997). Our inquiry 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 marks and citation omitted). 

“The failure-to-state-a-claim inquiry typically focuses on whether the 

plaintiff plausibly alleges the elements of a claim.” Bell v. Eagle Mountain 

Saginaw Indep. Sch. Dist., 27 F.4th 313, 320 (5th Cir. 2022). “A claim has 

facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the 

court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the 

misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). 

Although Alexander nominally raises four issues for appeal in her 

brief, she fails to establish that the factual allegations of her complaint 

plausibly allege the elements of any claim raised in her amended complaint, 

nor does she make a cogent argument that the district court erred in 

dismissing her action for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be 

granted. To the extent Alexander argues that the district court failed to 

dispose of claims raised in her pleadings, her contentions fail, as claims not 

specifically addressed by the district court are “implicitly denied with the 

entry of final judgment.” Babb v. Dorman, 33 F.3d 472, 476 n.6 (5th Cir. 

1994). Further, to the extent that Alexander merely lists issues in her IFP 

motion, without providing briefing, her presentation is insufficient and the 

issues are considered abandoned. See Weaver v. Puckett, 896 F.2d 126, 128 

(5th Cir. 1990). 

Case: 23-20355 Document: 57-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/05/2024
No. 23-20355

3

Because Alexander has not demonstrated that there is a nonfrivolous 

issue for appeal, her motion to proceed IFP is DENIED, and her appeal is 

DISMISSED as frivolous. See Baugh, 117 F.3d at 202 n.24; Howard, 

707 F.2d at 220; see also 5th Cir. R. 42.2. 

Case: 23-20355 Document: 57-1 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/05/2024