eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 Federal Courts
 US Court of Appeals Cases
 Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
 2021-02

Gu v. Invista S.A.R.L. ( 2021 )


Menu:
 
  • Case: 20-20027     Document: 00515740910         Page: 1     Date Filed: 02/10/2021
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit                              United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
February 10, 2021
No. 20-20027
Summary Calendar                        Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Fan Gu,
Plaintiff—Appellant,
versus
Invista S.A.R.L.,
Defendant—Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:19-CV-562
Before Stewart, Graves, and Higginson, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Fan Gu filed a notice of appeal seeking to challenge 14 rulings by the
district court, including its judgment dismissing Gu’s claim under the Age
Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA); its order granting, in
part, Invista’s postjudgment motion for sanctions; and its order denying
*
Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Case: 20-20027      Document: 00515740910          Page: 2    Date Filed: 02/10/2021
No. 20-20027
Gu’s postjudgment motion for leave to file a motion to reconsider the court’s
dismissal of his ADEA claim in light of newly discovered evidence. In
connection with his appeal, Gu moves for leave to proceed in forma pauperis
(IFP).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Gu IFP
status. See Carson v. Polley,
    689 F.2d 562
    , 586 (5th Cir. 1982). The question
of his financial eligibility notwithstanding, Gu’s notice of appeal was
untimely to preserve review of 13 of the 14 rulings he seeks to challenge,
including the dismissal of his ADEA claim and the district court’s sanctions
order. Consequently, we have no jurisdiction to consider Gu’s challenges to
those rulings. See Hamer v. Neighborhood Hous. Servs. of Chicago,
    138 S. Ct. 13
    , 16 (2017); Mosley v. Cozby,
    813 F.2d 659
    , 660 (5th Cir. 1987);
    28 U.S.C. § 2107
    (a); FED. R. APP. P. 4(a)(1)(A). Although Gu timely appealed the
district court’s denial of leave to file a motion to reconsider the dismissal of
his ADEA claim, he fails to identify any error in the district court’s ruling.
See Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner,
    813 F.2d 744
    , 748 (5th
Cir. 1987). Because Gu’s entire appeal lacks an arguable legal basis for
granting relief, we DENY leave to proceed IFP and DISMISS the appeal
as frivolous. See Baugh v. Taylor,
    117 F.3d 197
    , 202 & n.24 (5th Cir. 1997);
Howard v. King,
    707 F.2d 215
    , 220 (5th Cir. 1983); 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.
2