Benedict Emesowum v. Terri Llagostera , 628 F. App'x 264 ( 2015 )


Menu:
  •      Case: 14-20458      Document: 00513326641         Page: 1    Date Filed: 12/31/2015
    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
    No. 14-20458
    Summary Calendar
    United States Court of Appeals
    Fifth Circuit
    FILED
    December 31, 2015
    BENEDICT EMESOWUM,
    Lyle W. Cayce
    Clerk
    Plaintiff-Appellant
    v.
    TERRI LLAGOSTERA; MEADOWS SOUTHWEST APARTMENTS; GAR
    ASSOCIATES, L.P.; PITT SOUTHWEST INVESTORS, INCORPORATED;
    OAK LEAF MANAGEMENT; HOOVERSLOVASCEK, L.L.P.; CHRISTMAS
    EVE MORGAN,
    Defendants-Appellees
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Southern District of Texas
    USDC No. 4:13-CV-2818
    Before HIGGINBOTHAM, ELROD, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM: *
    Benedict Emesowum appeals the judgment of the district court, which
    dismissed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) his amended
    civil complaint raising claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, 3604, 3617, and
    3631. He also brought state-law claims for gross negligence, breach of fiduciary
    * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
    be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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: 14-20458      Document: 00513326641     Page: 2   Date Filed: 12/31/2015
    No. 14-20458
    duty, and breach of contract.      This court reviews a dismissal under Rule
    12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim de novo. Thompson v. City of Waco, 
    764 F.3d 500
    , 502 (5th Cir. 2014). “To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint
    must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to
    relief that is plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 
    556 U.S. 662
    , 678 (2009)
    (quotation marks and citation omitted). “[R]egardless of whether the plaintiff
    is proceeding pro se or is represented by counsel, conclusory allegations or legal
    conclusions masquerading as factual conclusions will not suffice to prevent a
    motion to dismiss.” Taylor v. Books A Million, Inc., 
    296 F.3d 376
    , 378 (5th Cir.
    2002) (quotation marks and citations omitted).
    Emesowum does not address the district court’s reasons for dismissing
    his claims with any specificity. See Brinkmann v. Dall. Cnty. Deputy Sheriff
    Abner, 
    813 F.2d 744
    , 748 (5th Cir. 1987); Yohey v. Collins, 
    985 F.2d 222
    , 225
    (5th Cir. 1993). He fails to show that the district court abused its discretion by
    denying his first motion for a default judgment since the defendants who had
    been served had timely filed answers to his complaint. See Lewis v. Lynn, 
    236 F.3d 766
    , 767–68 (5th Cir. 2001). We need not consider the argument that the
    defendants violated Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(b) by filing numerous
    pleadings to harass Emesowum since he did not raise this issue in the district
    court. See Jennings v. Owens, 
    602 F.3d 652
    , 657 n.7 (5th Cir. 2010).
    Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED and
    Emesowum’s motion for transcripts is DENIED. Emesowum is CAUTIONED
    that future frivolous or repetitive filings in this court will result in the
    imposition of sanctions, including dismissal, monetary sanctions, and
    restrictions on his ability to file pleadings in this court or any court subject to
    this court’s jurisdiction.
    2