Case: 24-20225 Document: 48-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/08/2024

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit ____________ FILED November 8, 2024 No. 24-20225 Lyle W. Cayce Summary Calendar Clerk ____________ Robert E. Prosper, Plaintiff—Appellant, versus City of Houston; S.T. Keene, Officer; K.R. Haverstrom, Officer, Defendants—Appellees. ______________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4:23-CV-2603 ______________________________ Before Smith, Graves, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam: * Robert E. Prosper moves for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal from the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint as frivolous.

By moving to proceed IFP, Prosper challenges the district court’s certification that his appeal is not taken in good faith. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997). Our inquiry “is limited to whether the _____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.

Case: 24-20225 Document: 48-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/08/2024

No. 24-20225

appeal involves legal points arguable on their merits (and therefore not frivolous).” Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).

Insofar as Prosper contends that the district court erred by dismissing as Heck-barred his claim that officers made false statements in a police report in violation of his Fourteenth Amendment rights, his assertion is without arguable merit. See Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994). Prosper has failed to identify any error in the district court’s reasoning for dismissing his remaining claims, and he has therefore abandoned any challenge to their dismissal. See Brinkmann v. Dallas Cnty. Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987). Because he has failed to identify any issue of arguable merit, Prosper’s motion to proceed IFP is DENIED, and his appeal is DISMISSED as frivolous. See Baugh, 117 F.3d at 202 n.24; Howard, 707 F.2d at 220; see also 5th Cir. R. 42.2.