United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT October 24, 2006
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 06-20453
Conference Calendar
HAYWOOD MACK ROSS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
LAMAR CONSOLIDATED INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT; BOARD OF
TRUSTEES; MICHAEL RICHARD; JACK CHRISTIANA; MARY LOU DUJKA; SAM
HOPKINS; KATHY HYNSON; JULIE THOMPSON; JESSE TORRES; THOMAS
RANDLE, Dr. Thomas Randle, Superintendent; EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
HUMAN RESOURCES; JUDY ADAMSON; LISA McKEY; KAREN MUMPHORD;
PHYLLIS DAVIDSON,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:06-CV-162
--------------------
Before JOLLY, DeMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Haywood Mack Ross appeals from the district court’s order
denying his motion to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) in the
district court with a pro se complaint pursuant to the Americans
With Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12101.
Ross’s appellate brief is directed to his current economic
status rather than his status at the time he sought to proceed
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 06-20453
-2-
IFP in the district court. He has not briefed a direct challenge
to the district court’s ruling. This is the same as if he had
not appealed that ruling. See Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy
Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987).
In any event, the district court did not abuse its
discretion in denying Ross’s IFP application. See Flowers v.
Turbine Support Div., 507 F.2d 1242, 1244 (5th Cir. 1975); Adkins
v. E. I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339-40 (1948).
At that time, Ross purportedly had $3,250 in savings and checking
accounts and was receiving more than $2,000 monthly in various
benefits.
Ross’s appeal is without merit and is frivolous. See Howard
v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983). Accordingly, the
appeal is DISMISSED. 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.