United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT November 30, 2004
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 04-10953
Summary Calendar
GREGORY D. ROWE,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
MENTAL HEALTH MENTAL RETARDATION,
Defendant-Appellee.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:04-CV-193-A
--------------------
Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and WIENER, 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 his discrimination suit for failure to prosecute.
Rowe failed to pay the filing fee after the district court
determined that he should not be granted IFP status because Rowe
had abused the IFP process by providing inconsistent information
in his IFP declarations and filing frivolous suits in the past.
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 04-10953
-2-
Rowe's motion for IFP fails 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). 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; APPEAL DISMISSED.