Wilson v. Bank of America

Filing 41

ORDER overruling 39 --objections; adopting 38 --REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS; denying 36 --motion for leave to appeal in forma pauperis. Signed by Judge Steven D. Merryday on 2/13/2017. (BK)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
FREDDIE WILSON,
Plaintiff,
v.

CASE NO. 8:16-cv-2102-T-23AAS

BANK OF AMERICA,
Defendant.
____________________________________/

ORDER
The magistrate judge recommends (Doc. 38) denying Freddie Wilson’s motion
(Doc. 36) for leave to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis. Specifically, the magistrate
judge finds that Wilson’s motion (Doc. 36) fails to comply with Rule 24(a), Federal
Rules of Appellate Procedure, because “the absence of any specified issues on appeal
leads [the magistrate judge] to conclude that the appeal is not taken in good faith.” A
good faith 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) (per curiam). Wilson objects (Doc. 39) to the report and recommendation.
After de novo review by the district court of the report and recommendation,
Wilson’s objections (Doc. 39) are OVERRULED, and the report and
recommendation (Doc. 38) is ADOPTED. Wilson’s motion (Doc. 36) to proceed on

appeal in forma pauperis is DENIED. In accord with Rule 24, Federal Rules of
Appellate Procedure, the clerk is directed to notify the court of appeals.
Under Rule 24(a)(5), within thirty days of service of this order, Wilson can
move in the court of appeals to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis. The motion
under Rule 24(a)(5) must include a copy of the affidavit (Doc. 36) filed in the district
court and the district court’s statement of reasons for denying the motion to proceed
on appeal in forma pauperis.
ORDERED in Tampa, Florida, on February 13, 2017.

-2-