United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT April 21, 2003
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 02-30811
Conference Calendar
VINCENT MARK CASTILLO,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
LINDA S. BROCKHOEFT, Clerk of Court for the
24th Judicial District Court, Jefferson, LA,
Defendant-Appellee.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana
USDC No. 02-CV-690
- - - - - - - - - -
Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Vincent Mark Castillo has filed a motion for leave to
proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) in his appeal of the district
court’s dismissal of his civil rights complaint. This court may
authorize Castillo to proceed IFP on appeal if he is economically
eligible and his appeal is not frivolous. See Jackson v. Dallas
Police Dep’t, 811 F.2d 260, 261 (5th Cir. 1986).
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 02-30811
-2-
Failure to identify an error in the district court’s
analysis is the same as if the appellant had not appealed the
judgment. See Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner,
813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987). In his proposed appellate
brief, Castillo makes no attempt to contest the district court’s
determinations that his claims lack an arguable basis in law,
that his complaint fails to state a claim, and that the complaint
seeks monetary damages from immune defendants. Castillo thus has
waived the only issues relevant to his IFP motion. See Yohey v.
Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 225 (5th Cir. 1993) (issues not briefed
are deemed abandoned).
Because Castillo’s appeal presents no non-frivolous issue,
we DENY his motion to proceed IFP, and we DISMISS the appeal as
frivolous. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir.
1983); 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.
IFP MOTION DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS.