Rosas v. Perez , 206 F. App'x 355 ( 2006 )

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT November 16, 2006
Charles R. Fulbruge III
No. 05-41800 Clerk
Summary Calendar
GEORGE L. ROSAS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
PATSY PEREZ, District Clerk, Nueces County;
CATHY POPE CLARK, Assistant Attorney General, Child Support
Division; LORENA COVARRUBIAS, Deputy Clerk, Nueces County;
CLAUDIA PV, Deputy Clerk, Nueces County;
J.U. WILBURN, Deputy Clerk, Nueces County,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
No. 2:05-CV-102
--------------------
Before SMITH, WIENER, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
George Rosas, a Texas prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma
pauperis (“IFP”), filed a civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 against Patsy Perez, Clerk of Court for Nueces County, and
Cathy Pope Clark, Assistant Attorney GeneralSSChild Support Divi-
*
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should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circum-
stances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
sion, in their individual, not official, capacities. Rosas alleges
that he did not receive notice of the outcome of a paternity action
in which he was involved and that he was not informed that the doc-
uments he submitted had been filed in the paternity case. He as-
serts that Perez and Clark conspired to prevent him from receiving
the notices. The district court dismissed under FED. R. CIV. P.
12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. A district court’s ruling
on a rule 12(b)(6) motion for failure to state a claim is subject
to de novo review. Scanlan v. Texas A&M University, 343 F.3d 533,
536 (5th Cir. 2003).
The court dismissed the claim that Perez and Clark conspired
to deprive Rosas of his opportunity to litigate his paternity suit,
because the claim was based solely on conclusional allegations that
were unsupported by any specific factual allegations. On appeal,
Rosas has not alleged any factual basis supporting his claims. The
district court did not err in finding that Rosas’s conclusional al-
legations are insufficient to state a claim. See Fernandez-Montes
v. Allied Pilots Ass’n, 987 F.2d 278, 284 (5th Cir. 1993).
The court also did not err in granting the motions to dismiss
for failure to state a claim without giving Rosas leave to amend.
Schultea v. Wood, 27 F.3d 1112, 1118 (5th Cir. 1994) (quoting Jac-
quez v. Procunier, 801 F.2d 789, 792 (5th Cir. 1986)); see also
Jones v. Greninger, 188 F.3d 322, 326-27 (5th Cir. 1999).
Rosas’s motion for appointment of counsel on appeal is denied.
See Akasike v. Fitzpatrick, 26 F.3d 510, 512 (5th Cir. 1994); Cupit
v. Jones, 835 F.2d 82, 96 (5th Cir. 1987).
AFFIRMED; MOTION DENIED.