eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 Federal Courts
 US Court of Appeals Cases
 Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
 2023-05

Grant v. Texas State ( 2023 )


Menu:
 
  • Case: 22-50869   Document: 00516740520   Page: 1    Date Filed: 05/05/2023
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
____________                     United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
No. 22-50869                        May 5, 2023
Summary Calendar
____________                        Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Patricia A. Grant, PH.D.,
Plaintiff—Appellant,
versus
Texas State Attorney General Open Government
Records, and Consumer Protection Division; Texas
Health and Human Service Commission; Department of
Aging and Disability Services, Office of the Long-Term
Care Ombudsman Program Open Records Division;
Patricia Ducayet; Theresa Thomson; Cynthia Boyum;
Bexar County Area Agency on Aging, Ombudsman Program;
Tx Department of Family Protective Services, Adult
Protective Services; Sandra Martinez; Coryell County
Memorial Hospital, also known as Coryell Health; David K.
Byrom; Regent Management Services L.P.; Charles D.
Milos, Jr.; Steven E. Conner; Regent Care Center of
San Antonio II, L.P.; Regent Care General Partner
Incorporated; Regent Care Operations General
Partner Incorporated; Regent Care Center of San
Antonio; Regent Care Center of Oakwell Farms, also
known as Regent Care Center of San Antonio II Limited
Partnership, also known as Regent Care Center of Oakwell
Farms; Robert Kerr; Deborah Seabron; Stanley Grant;
Harold Grant; Terry Luna; Bertha L. Franklin;
Discoverable Others; Regent Care Center Oakwell
Farms,
Case: 22-50869           Document: 00516740520             Page: 2      Date Filed: 05/05/2023
Defendants—Appellees.
______________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 5:21-CV-761
______________________________
Before King, Jones, and Smith, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam: *
Patricia A. Grant, proceeding pro se, moves for leave to proceed in
forma pauperis (IFP) in this appeal of the sua sponte dismissal of her case.
The motion is a challenge to the district court’s certification that the appeal
is not taken in good faith. See Baugh v. Taylor,
    117 F.3d 197
    , 202 (5th Cir.
1997).
Grant fails to address the district court’s reasons for the dismissal of
her complaint as frivolous and malicious and for failure to state a claim. Pro
se briefs are afforded liberal construction. See Yohey v. Collins,
    985 F.2d 222
    ,
225 (5th Cir. 1993). Nevertheless, when an appellant fails to identify any
error in the district court’s analysis, it is the same as if the appellant had not
appealed the decision. Brinkmann v. Dallas Cnty. Deputy Sheriff Abner,
    813 F.2d 744
    , 748 (5th Cir. 1987).
Because Grant has failed to challenge any factual or legal aspect of the
district court’s disposition of her claims or the certification that her appeal is
not taken in good faith, she has abandoned the critical issue of her appeal. See
    id.
     Thus, the appeal lacks arguable merit. See Howard v. King,
    707 F.2d 215
    ,
220 (5th Cir. 1983). Accordingly, the motion for leave to proceed IFP is
DENIED, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED as frivolous. See Baugh,
    117 F.3d at 
    202 n.24; 5TH CIR. R. 42.2. Grant is WARNED that filing
_____________________
*
This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
2
Case: 22-50869     Document: 00516740520          Page: 3   Date Filed: 05/05/2023
No. 22-50869
further frivolous appeals will subject her to sanctions. See Fed. R. App. P.
38; Clark v. Green,
    814 F.2d 221
    , 223 (5th Cir. 1987).
3