Bouldin v. Constar Plastic Inc, No. 05-60568 (5th Cir. 2006)
Annotate this CaseThis opinion or order relates to an opinion or order originally issued on December 14, 2006.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit F I L E D IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT December 12, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk No. 05-60568 Conference Calendar PERCY BOULDIN, JR., Plaintiff-Appellant, versus CONSTAR PLASTIC, INC., also known as Constar Plastic, Inc., Defendant-Appellee. -------------------Appeals from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi USDC No. 3:04-CV-305 -------------------Before KING, WIENER, and OWEN, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Percy Bouldin, Jr., moves this court for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal following the grant of summary judgment in favor of Constar Plastic, Inc. (Constar). We construe Bouldin s motion as a challenge to the determination that the appeal is not taken in good faith. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997). Bouldin s motion addresses only his asserted indigent status and does not challenge the dismissal of his complaint as barred by the statute of limitations. * Failure to identify an error in 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. 05-60568 -2the district court s analysis is the same as if the appellant had not appealed the judgment. Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987). Although pro se briefs are liberally construed, even pro se litigants must brief arguments in order to preserve them. Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 225 (5th Cir. 1993). Bouldin has not shown that the determination that his appeal would not be taken in good faith was incorrect. is without arguable merit and is frivolous. 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983). Bouldin s appeal See Howard v. King, Accordingly, Bouldin s request for IFP status is denied, and his appeal is dismissed. See id.; 5TH CIR. R. 42.2. Constar s motion to dismiss the appeal is denied. MOTIONS DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
