
    Joshua Adam CONLAN, Plaintiff-Appellant v. UNITED STATES of America; Judge Andrew Austin; Elizabeth Cottingham; Daniel Castillo; Richard Durbin; Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 13-51066.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Aug. 11, 2014.
    Joshua Adam Conlan, Leavenworth, KS, pro se.
    
      Before DAVIS, CLEMENT, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Joshua Adam Conlan, federal prisoner # 81084-280, seeks authorization to appeal in forma pauperis (IFP) from the dismissal of his civil action. Conlan sued several defendants and asserted various improper actions arising from his arrest, detention, and federal prosecution for interstate stalking. The district court denied Conlan leave to appeal IFP and certified that the appeal was not in good faith. See Fed. R.App. P. 24(a).

By moving in this court to appeal IFP, Conlan 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). His IFP request “must be directed solely to the trial court’s reasons for the certification decision,” id., and our inquiry “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) (citation omitted). We may dismiss the appeal “when it is apparent that an appeal would be meritless.” Baugh, 117 F.3d at 202 & n. 24; see 5th Cir. Rule 42.2.

Conlan says in a single curt and conclu-sional paragraph that he thinks the district court’s ruling was wrong. The rest of his application concerns only his financial condition. Conlan’s bare assertions do not identify any nonfrivolous issue for appeal. See Beavers v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 566 F.3d 436, 439 (5th Cir.2009) (concerning dismissal for failure to state a claim). The motion for leave to appeal IFP is DENIED, and the appeal is DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS. See Baugh, 117 F.3d at 202 & n. 24; 5th Cir. Rule 42.2 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     