United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT November 17, 2004
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 04-10561
GREGORY D. ROWE,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
KELVIN BLANTON,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:04-CV-179-A
Before JONES, BARKSDALE, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Gregory D. Rowe moves this court for leave to proceed in
forma pauperis (“IFP”) in this appeal from the district court's
dismissal of Rowe's discrimination suit brought pursuant to Title
II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C.
§ 12132 et seq. The district court dismissed the suit for failure
to prosecute when Rowe failed to pay the filing fee after the court
determined that Rowe should not be granted IFP status.
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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.
Rowe’s motion for IFP and appellate brief fail to address
the district court’s rationale for dismissing the suit. Although
this court liberally construes pro se briefs, see Haines v. Kerner,
404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972), even pro se litigants must brief
arguments in order to preserve them. Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d
222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993). By failing to discuss the district
court’s rationale for dismissing his complaint, Rowe has abandoned
the issue, and it is the same as if he had not appealed the
judgment. See Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813
F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987).
Because Rowe has failed to demonstrate that he will raise
a nonfrivolous issue on appeal, his motion to proceed IFP is
denied. See FED. R. APP. P. 24(a); Carson v. Polley, 689 F.2d 562,
586 (5th Cir. 1982). Rowe’s motion for appointment of counsel is
also denied. The appeal is without merit and is dismissed as
frivolous. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir.
1983); 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.
MOTION FOR IFP DENIED; MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL
DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED.
2