Haywood Mack Ross appeals from the district court’s order denying his motion to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) in the district court with a pro se complaint pursuant to the Americans With Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12101.

Ross’s appellate brief is directed to his current economic status rather than his *790 status at the time he sought to proceed IFP in the district court. He has not briefed a direct challenge to the district court’s ruling. This is the same as if he had not appealed that ruling. See Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987).

In any event, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Ross’s IFP application. See Flowers v. Turbine Support Div., 507 F.2d 1242, 1244 (5th Cir. 1975); Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339-40, 69 S.Ct. 85, 93 L.Ed. 43 (1948). At that time, Ross purportedly had $3,250 in savings and checking accounts and was receiving more than $2,000 monthly in various benefits.

Ross’s appeal is without merit and is frivolous. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983). Accordingly, the appeal is DISMISSED. 5th Cir. R. 42.2.