Case: 25-10290 Document: 63-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/06/2025

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ____________ United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 25-10290 Summary Calendar FILED ____________ November 6, 2025 Lyle W. Cayce Jeremy Edward Schroppel, Clerk Plaintiff—Appellant, versus Vanderbilt Mortgage and Finance, Incorporated, Defendant—Appellee. ______________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC Nos. 3:23-CV-2123, 3:23-CV-2552 ______________________________ Before Southwick, Duncan, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam: * Jeremy Edward Schroppel moves to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal following the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) dismissal of his pro se civil suit by the district court. He also wishes to appeal its denial of his Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 motion for summary judgment. By moving to proceed IFP in this court, Schroppel challenges the district _____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.

Case: 25-10290 Document: 63-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/06/2025

No. 25-10290

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 into whether an appeal is taken in good faith “is limited to whether the 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).

Schroppel contends in his IFP pleadings that Vanderbilt Mortgage and Finance violated the Truth in Lending Act by not providing required loan disclosures and not honoring his request to rescind his loan. However, his contentions do not raise a nonfrivolous issue for appeal. See 15 U.S.C. § 1632(a), (e)(1); 15 U.S.C. § 1602(w), (x); 12 C.F.R. § 226.5; 12 C.F.R. § 226.18.

In view of the foregoing, Schroppel’s IFP motion is DENIED, and his appeal is DISMISSED as frivolous. See Baugh, 117 F.3d at 202 n.24; 5th Cir. R. 42.2.