Ricky Ewing v. Denstiny Richie, et al, No. 17-60176 (5th Cir. 2017)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 17-60176 Document: 00514238173 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/15/2017 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 17-60176 United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED November 15, 2017 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk RICKY RONNELL EWING, Plaintiff-Appellant v. DENSTINY RICHIE, Nurse; LATRINA GAMBLE, Correctional Officer; PORCHIA JOHNSON, Correctional Officer, Defendants-Appellees Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi USDC No. 1:16-CV-90 Before SMITH, PRADO, and ELROD, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Ricky Ronnell Ewing, Mississippi prisoner # 34353, moves for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal from the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. The district court denied Ewing leave to proceed IFP on appeal, certifying that the appeal was not taken in good faith because Ewing had not sought review of any issue that was arguable on its merits. 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 17-60176 Document: 00514238173 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/15/2017 No. 17-60176 Ewing pleads his indigency but does not challenge any legal aspect of the district court’s disposition of his § 1983 complaint or the certification that his appeal is not taken in good faith. Accordingly, he has abandoned the critical issues of his appeal. See Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987). Thus, the appeal lacks arguable merit and is therefore frivolous. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983). Ewing’s motion for leave to proceed IFP on appeal is DENIED, and his appeal is DISMISSED as frivolous. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 n.24 (5th Cir. 1997); 5TH CIR. R. 42.2. 2

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.