Case: 11-10974 Document: 00511953900 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/13/2012
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
August 13, 2012
No. 11-10974
Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
LOU TYLER,
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
CITI RESIDENTIAL LENDING, INCORPORATED,
Defendant-Appellee
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 3:09-CV-1488
Before JOLLY, DAVIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Lou Tyler moves this court for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) in
her appeal of the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the
defendant, Citi Residential Lending, Inc. (Citi). She also moves this court for
appointment of counsel and summary judgment. By moving for IFP status here,
Tyler is challenging the district court’s certification that her appeal is not taken
in good faith. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997); FED . R.
APP. P. 24(a). Tyler’s brief on appeal contends that Citi should have reduced her
*
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 11-10974 Document: 00511953900 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/13/2012
No. 11-10974
payoff amount and that Citi harassed her, threatened foreclosure, and placed
her in foreclosure. She does not address, however, the district court’s
certification that her appeal was not taken in good faith, nor does she address
any of the district court’s reasons for its certification decision. See Baugh, 117
F.3d at 202. Accordingly, her challenge to the district court’s certification
decision is deemed abandoned. See Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff
Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987). Additionally, Tyler has not shown that
her appeal involves “legal points arguable on their merits (and therefore not
frivolous).” Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983).
Tyler’s motion for leave to proceed IFP on appeal is DENIED; her motion
for appointment of counsel is DENIED; her motion for summary judgment is
DENIED; and her appeal is DISMISSED as frivolous. See Baugh, 117 F.3d at
202 & n.24; 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.
2