Full Opinion

Case: 26-10352 Document: 31-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/11/2026 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals ____________ Fifth Circuit FILED No. 26-10352 November 11, 2026 Summary Calendar Thomas B. Plunkett, III ____________ Clerk Robert Leon Donaldson, Plaintiff—Appellant, versus Hiland Dairy; Borden Dairy; Lanora Wyatt; Nate Glosser; Michael Green, Defendants—Appellees. ______________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:25-CV-2649 ______________________________ Before Jones, Ho, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam: * Robert Leon Donaldson, proceeding pro se, moves for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) in this appeal of the district court’s dismissal of his complaint. Donaldson’s complaint raised employment-based claims of sexual harassment and racial discrimination that the district court ultimately construed as employment discrimination claims under Title VII of * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. Case: 26-10352 Document: 31-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/11/2026 No. 26-10352 the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The district court dismissed Donaldson’s complaint with prejudice upon finding that his claims were time barred because he failed to timely file a charge raising his claims with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). The district court additionally found that Donaldson had not shown that he was entitled to tolling of the limitations period. Donaldson’s IFP motion is a challenge to the district court’s certification that the appeal is not taken in good faith because Donaldson will not present a nonfrivolous appellate issue. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997). In his IFP brief, Donaldson does not challenge the district court’s conclusion that his EEOC charge was not timely filed. Nevertheless, he claims that the limitations period should be equitably tolled or tolled based on a theory of equitable estoppel or fraudulent concealment. However, Donaldson’s failure to meaningfully brief any claim for equitable tolling, equitable estoppel, or fraudulent concealment results in abandonment of those claims. See Brinkmann v. Dallas Cnty. Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987). Accordingly, he has shown no arguable error in the district court’s dismissal of his complaint as time barred. Donaldson fails to make the requisite showing that he will present a nonfrivolous issue for appeal. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983). Accordingly, his motion to proceed IFP is DENIED, and his appeal is DISMISSED as frivolous. See Baugh, 117 F.3d at 202 n.24; 5th Cir. R. 42.2. 2