From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Andrews v. Group

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION
Mar 2, 2015
3:15-CV-0111-N-BK (N.D. Tex. Mar. 2, 2015)

Opinion

3:15-CV-0111-N-BK

03-02-2015

CHARLES RAY ANDREWS, JR, Plaintiff, v. BILDERBERG GROUP, Defendant.


ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS , CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

The United States Magistrate Judge made Findings, Conclusions, and a Recommendation in this case. No objections were filed. The District Court reviewed the proposed findings, conclusions and recommendation for plain error. Finding none, the Court ACCEPTS the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the complaint is summarily DISMISSED with prejudice as frivolous. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). In addition, Plaintiff is BARRED from filing future in forma pauperis actions in this Court without first seeking leave to file.

The Court prospectively CERTIFIES that any appeal of this action would not be taken in good faith. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3); FED. R. APP. P. 24(a)(3). In support of this certification, the Court adopts and incorporates by reference the Magistrate Judge's Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation. See Baugh v. Taylor , 117 F.3d 197, 202 and n.21 (5th Cir. 1997). Based on the Findings and Recommendation, the Court finds that any appeal of this action would present no legal point of arguable merit and would, therefore, be frivolous. Howard v. King , 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983). In the event of an appeal, Plaintiff may challenge this certification by filing a separate motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal with the Clerk of the Court, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. See Baugh , 117 F.3d at 202; FED . R. APP . P. 24(a)(5).

Signed March 2, 2015.

/s/_________

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a) governs the time to appeal an order. A timely notice of appeal must be filed even if the district court certifies an appeal as not taken in good faith.


Summaries of

Andrews v. Group

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION
Mar 2, 2015
3:15-CV-0111-N-BK (N.D. Tex. Mar. 2, 2015)
Case details for

Andrews v. Group

Case Details

Full title:CHARLES RAY ANDREWS, JR, Plaintiff, v. BILDERBERG GROUP, Defendant.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION

Date published: Mar 2, 2015

Citations

3:15-CV-0111-N-BK (N.D. Tex. Mar. 2, 2015)

Citing Cases

Andrews v. Earle Cabell Fed. Bldg.

This complaint is just one of twenty complaints that Plaintiff filed pro se in the Dallas Division of the…