Case Information
*1 Before DENNIS, SOUTHWICK, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: [*]
Frank Dwight Carter, former Texas prisoner # 561942, moves for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) in this appeal of the sua sponte dismissal of his case. The motion is a challenge to the district court’s certification that the appeal is not taken in good faith. See Baugh v. Taylor , 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997).
*2 Case: 16-11296 Document: 00514198431 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/17/2017
No. 16-11296
Carter fails to address the district court’s reasons for finding his case to be frivolous. Pro se briefs are afforded liberal construction. See Yohey v. Collins , 985 F.2d 222, 225 (5th Cir. 1993). Nevertheless, when an appellant fails to identify any error in the district court’s analysis, it is the same as if the appellant had not appealed the decision. Brinkmann v. Dallas Cty. Deputy Sheriff Abner , 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987).
Because Carter has failed to challenge any factual or legal aspect of the district court’s disposition of his claims or the certification that his appeal is not taken in good faith, he has abandoned the critical issue of his appeal. See id . Thus, the appeal lacks arguable merit. See Howard v. King , 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983). Accordingly, the motion for leave to proceed IFP is DENIED, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED as frivolous. See Baugh , 117 F.3d at 202 n.24; 5 TH C IR . R. 42.2. Carter is WARNED that filing further frivolous appeals will subject him to sanctions. See F ED . R. A PP . P. 38; Clark v. Green , 814 F.2d 221, 223 (5th Cir. 1987).
2
[*] Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4.