PER CURIAM: ^[*]

Craig and Kelly Pittman sued in state court to prevent foreclosure on *2 Case: 16-10113 Document: 00513888834 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/24/2017

No. 16-10113

their house; defendants removed. Defendant Federal National Mortgage Asso- ciation (“Fannie Mae”) counterclaimed for judicial foreclosure. After a series of motions by the defendants and recommendations by the magistrate judge, none of which was opposed or objected to by the Pittmans, the district court entered an amended judgment against the Pittmans on their claims and in favor of Fannie Mae on its counterclaim. The Pittmans filed two post-judgment motions, both of which the court denied.

The Pittmans have filed an appellate brief and a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) on appeal; that motion is a challenge to the district court’s certification that the appeal is not in good faith. See Baugh v. Taylor , 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997). Our inquiry into good faith “is limited to whether the appeal involves legal points arguable on their merits (and there- fore not frivolous).” Howard v. King , 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983) (internal quotation and citation omitted). We may dismiss the appeal if it is apparent that it would be meritless. Baugh , 117 F.3d at 202 & n.24; see 5 TH C IR . R. 42.2.

The Pittmans’ submissions exclusively challenge the district court’s denial of their second post-judgment motion. We lack appellate jurisdiction to review that issue, because the Pittmans have not properly noticed for appeal the order denying their second-post-judgment motion. See Fiess v. State Farm Lloyds , 392 F.3d 802, 806 (5th Cir. 2004). Because the remainder of their brief- ing fails to articulate any other reviewable error in the disposition of their claims or the counterclaim, the Pittmans have abandoned the critical issues of their appeal. See Yohey v. Collins , 985 F.2d 222, 224–25 (5th Cir. 1993); Brink- mann v. Dall. Cty. Deputy Sheriff Abner , 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987).

Thus, the appeal is without arguable merit and is frivolous. See 5 TH C IR . R. 42.2. The request to appeal IFP is DENIED, and the appeal is DISMISSED. See Baugh , 117 F.3d at 202 & n.24.

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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR .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.