Bello v. Johnson

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
• Decided: December 29, 2025
• Docket: 25-40133
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Case: 25-40133 Document: 66-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/29/2025

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals ____________ Fifth Circuit

FILED No. 25-40133 December 29, 2025 Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce ____________ Clerk

Olamide Olatayo Bello,

Petitioner—Appellant,

versus

Mark Johnson, Fannin County Sheriff,

Respondent—Appellee. ______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 4:24-CV-365 ______________________________

Before Southwick, Duncan, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam:* Olamide Olatayo Bello, federal prisoner # 65100-510, moves for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) in this appeal of the district court’s sua sponte dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition for want of prosecution. The motion is a challenge to the district court’s certification that the appeal

_____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. Case: 25-40133 Document: 66-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/29/2025

No. 25-40133

is not taken in good faith. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997). Bello fails to address meaningfully the district court’s reasons for the dismissal of his § 2241 petition. 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 Bello has failed to challenge meaningfully any factual or legal aspect of the district court’s dismissal of his § 2241 petition, he has abandoned the critical issue of his 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. Bello’s motion to adopt all exhibits from a separate appeal is also DENIED.