Case Name: Haywood Mack ROSS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LAMAR CONSOLIDATED INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT; Board Of Trustees; Michael Richard; Jack Christiana; Mary Lou Dujka; Sam Hopkins; Kathy Hynson; Julie Thompson; Jesse Torres; Thomas Randle, Dr. Thomas Randle, Superintendent; Executive Director Human Resources; Judy Adamson; Lisa McKey; Karen Mumphord; Phyllis Davidson, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-10-24
Citations: 202 F. App'x 789
Docket Number: No. 06-20453
Parties: Haywood Mack ROSS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LAMAR CONSOLIDATED INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT; Board Of Trustees; Michael Richard; Jack Christiana; Mary Lou Dujka; Sam Hopkins; Kathy Hynson; Julie Thompson; Jesse Torres; Thomas Randle, Dr. Thomas Randle, Superintendent; Executive Director Human Resources; Judy Adamson; Lisa McKey; Karen Mumphord; Phyllis Davidson, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before JOLLY, DeMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 202
Pages: 789–790

Head Matter:
Haywood Mack ROSS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LAMAR CONSOLIDATED INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT; Board Of Trustees; Michael Richard; Jack Christiana; Mary Lou Dujka; Sam Hopkins; Kathy Hynson; Julie Thompson; Jesse Torres; Thomas Randle, Dr. Thomas Randle, Superintendent; Executive Director Human Resources; Judy Adamson; Lisa McKey; Karen Mumphord; Phyllis Davidson, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 06-20453
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Oct. 24, 2006.
Haywood Mack Ross, Sugar Land, TX, pro se.
Before JOLLY, DeMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Haywood Mack Ross appeals from the district court's order denying his motion to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) in the district court with a pro se complaint pursuant to the Americans With Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12101.
Ross's appellate brief is directed to his current economic status rather than his status at the time he sought to proceed IFP in the district court. He has not briefed a direct challenge to the district court's ruling. This is the same as if he had not appealed that ruling. See Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir.1987).
In any event, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Ross's IFP application. See Flowers v. Turbine Support Div., 507 F.2d 1242, 1244 (5th Cir.1975); Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339-40, 69 S.Ct. 85, 93 L.Ed. 43 (1948). At that time, Ross purportedly had $3,250 in savings and checking accounts and was receiving more than $2,000 monthly in various benefits.
Ross's appeal is without merit and is frivolous. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir.1983). Accordingly, the appeal is DISMISSED. 5th Cir. R. 42.2.
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.