From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

James v. Watkins

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION
Oct 17, 2014
3:14-CV-02637-N-BK (N.D. Tex. Oct. 17, 2014)

Opinion

3:14-CV-02637-N-BK

10-17-2014

JAMES A ROUGHLEY, Plaintiff, v. CRAIG WATKINS, Defendant.


ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

The United States Magistrate Judge made Findings, Conclusions, and a Recommendation in this case. Plaintiff/Petitioner filed objections, and the District Court has made a de novo review of those portions of the proposed findings and recommendation to which objection was made. The objections are overruled, and 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 and/or for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). This dismissal will count as a "strike" or "prior occasion" within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

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).

SO ORDERED this October 17, 2014.

/s/_________

UNITED SPATES 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

James v. Watkins

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION
Oct 17, 2014
3:14-CV-02637-N-BK (N.D. Tex. Oct. 17, 2014)
Case details for

James v. Watkins

Case Details

Full title:JAMES A ROUGHLEY, Plaintiff, v. CRAIG WATKINS, Defendant.

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

Date published: Oct 17, 2014

Citations

3:14-CV-02637-N-BK (N.D. Tex. Oct. 17, 2014)

Citing Cases

McArty v. Turner

Additionally, at least two other federal District courts have upheld identity-at-issue threshold requirements…