J. Ramsey, Jr. v. Merrial Lee , 627 F. App'x 385 ( 2015 )


Menu:
  •      Case: 15-60242      Document: 00513320544         Page: 1    Date Filed: 12/23/2015
    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
    United States Court of Appeals
    Fifth Circuit
    FILED
    No. 15-60242                   December 23, 2015
    Lyle W. Cayce
    J. C. RAMSEY, JR.,                                                           Clerk
    Plaintiff-Appellant
    v.
    MERRIAL LEE, Sergeant, in individual and official capacities; LORRETTA
    ROBINSON, Correction Officer, in individual and official capacities; ROBERT
    TAYLOR, Warden, Issaquena County Correctional Facility, in individual and official
    capacities,
    Defendants-Appellees
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Southern District of Mississippi
    USDC No. 3:13-CV-861
    Before DAVIS, JONES, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM: *
    J.C. Ramsey, Jr. moves for leave to appeal in forma pauperis (IFP) and
    for appointment of counsel. Ramsey filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against the
    warden and two correctional officers of the Issaquena County Correctional
    Facility, alleging claims arising from the alleged confiscation of legal
    materials. The district court dismissed the action for failure to state a claim.
    * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
    be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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.
    Case: 15-60242    Document: 00513320544     Page: 2   Date Filed: 12/23/2015
    No. 15-60242
    The court also denied Ramsey’s IFP motion and certified that his appeal was
    not taken in good faith.
    By moving to appeal IFP, Ramsey challenges the certification that his
    appeal is not 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).
    We may dismiss the appeal if “it is apparent that an appeal would be
    meritless.” 
    Baugh, 117 F.3d at 202
    & n.24; see 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.
    We review de novo the district court’s dismissal for failure to state a
    claim. See Beavers v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 
    566 F.3d 436
    , 439-39 (5th Cir.
    2009); FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6). “The court may dismiss a claim when it is clear
    that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim that would
    entitle him to relief.” Jones v. Greninger, 
    188 F.3d 322
    , 324 (5th Cir. 1999).
    Although factual allegations are viewed in the light most favorable to the
    plaintiff, “conclusory allegations or legal conclusions masquerading as factual
    conclusions will not suffice to prevent a motion to dismiss.” 
    Beavers, 566 F.3d at 439
    (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Issues not argued on
    appeal are deemed abandoned, and the mere mention of a claim, unsupported
    by any factual or legal analysis, does not amount to adequate briefing and does
    not preserve the issue for appellate review. See Audler v. CBC Innovis Inc.,
    
    519 F.3d 239
    , 255 (5th Cir. 2008); Brinkmann v. Dallas Cty. Deputy Sheriff
    Abner, 
    813 F.2d 744
    , 748 (5th Cir. 1987) (noting that this court is not required
    to fashion theories and arguments for appellants).
    Ramsey merely repeats his narrative of events and concludes that stated
    a valid claim. He does not discuss the district court’s reason for dismissal or
    identify any factual or legal error in the district court’s ruling or IFP denial.
    2
    Case: 15-60242    Document: 00513320544    Page: 3   Date Filed: 12/23/2015
    No. 15-60242
    Ramsey thus abandons any challenge to the dismissal of his claims or the
    denial of IFP status. See 
    Audler 519 F.3d at 255
    . Because Ramsey fails to
    identify any nonfrivolous issue for appeal, his motion to appeal IFP is
    DENIED. His motion for appointment of counsel is likewise DENIED. The
    appeal is DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS. See 
    Baugh, 117 F.3d at 202
    ; 
    Howard, 707 F.2d at 220
    ; 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.
    3