Filed: Dec. 15, 2006
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit F I L E D IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT December 12, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk No. 05-60568 Conference Calendar PERCY BOULDIN, JR., Plaintiff-Appellant, versus CONSTAR PLASTIC, INC., also known as Constar Plastic, Inc., Defendant-Appellee. - Appeals from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi USDC No. 3:04-CV-305 - Before KING, WIENER, and OWEN, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Perc
Summary: United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit F I L E D IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT December 12, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk No. 05-60568 Conference Calendar PERCY BOULDIN, JR., Plaintiff-Appellant, versus CONSTAR PLASTIC, INC., also known as Constar Plastic, Inc., Defendant-Appellee. - Appeals from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi USDC No. 3:04-CV-305 - Before KING, WIENER, and OWEN, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Percy..
More
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT December 12, 2006
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 05-60568
Conference Calendar
PERCY BOULDIN, JR.,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
CONSTAR PLASTIC, INC., also known as Constar Plastic, Inc.,
Defendant-Appellee.
--------------------
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Mississippi
USDC No. 3:04-CV-305
--------------------
Before KING, WIENER, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Percy Bouldin, Jr., moves this court for leave to proceed in
forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal following the grant of summary
judgment in favor of Constar Plastic, Inc. (Constar). We
construe Bouldin’s motion as a challenge to the determination
that the appeal is not taken in good faith. See Baugh v. Taylor,
117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997).
Bouldin’s motion addresses only his asserted indigent status
and does not challenge the dismissal of his complaint as barred
by the statute of limitations. Failure to identify an error in
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
No. 05-60568
-2-
the district court’s analysis is the same as if the appellant had
not appealed the judgment. Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy
Sheriff Abner,
813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987). Although pro
se briefs are liberally construed, even pro se litigants must
brief arguments in order to preserve them. Yohey v. Collins,
985 F.2d 222, 225 (5th Cir. 1993).
Bouldin has not shown that the determination that his appeal
would not be taken in good faith was incorrect. Bouldin’s appeal
is without arguable merit and is frivolous. See Howard v. King,
707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983). Accordingly, Bouldin’s
request for IFP status is denied, and his appeal is dismissed.
See id.; 5TH CIR. R. 42.2. Constar’s motion to dismiss the appeal
is denied.
MOTIONS DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED.