Nicholson et al v. US Bank National et al

Filing 9

ORDER ADOPTING: 8 Findings and Recommendations. ORDER DENYING: 6 MOTION to Appoint Counsel and 5 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis. The court Dismisses this action without prejudice for failure to prosecute or follow orders of the court. (Ordered by Judge Sam A Lindsay on 2/21/2012) (cea)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
CHARLES E. NICHOLSON,
MARIA P. NICHOLSON,
Plaintiffs,
v.
U.S. BANK NATIONAL, et. al,
Defendants.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

Civil Action No. 3:11-CV-3272-L-BH

ORDER
Before the court are the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of the United States
Magistrate Judge, filed January 9, 2012. Plaintiffs did not file any objections.
Plaintiff Charles E. Nicholson filed this case on behalf of himself and Maria P. Nicholson
(collectively, “Plaintiffs”) and moved to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) on November 28, 2011.
The IFP motion was signed only by Mr. Nicholson. By order dated November 29, 2011, Magistrate
Judge Irma Ramirez informed Plaintiffs that Mr. Nicholson could not represent Ms. Nicholson, and
that each plaintiff must either file an amended complaint that asserted only his or her personal
claims, or they could both sign and submit a joint amended complaint. The order also advised that
the application to proceed IFP was not signed by both plaintiffs and did not contain financial
information for both plaintiffs, and that each party seeking to proceed in forma pauperis must submit
a properly signed and completed application. The order provided that Plaintiffs had 30 days to
submit their amended complaint(s) and motions to proceed IFP and warned that failure to comply
with the order could result in the dismissal of the suit. To date, Plaintiffs have not filed amended
complaint or IFP applications or anything else in this case. Accordingly, Magistrate Judge Ramirez
Order – Page 1

recommends that the court dismiss this case for failure to prosecute or follow orders of the court
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).
Having reviewed the pleadings, file, and record in this case, and the findings and conclusions
of the magistrate judge, the court determines that the findings and conclusions are correct. They are
therefore accepted as those of the court. Accordingly, the court denies Plaintiffs’ Application to
Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs. There is also pending before the court
a Motion for the Appointment of Counsel, filed November 28, 2011. Plaintiffs provided no affidavit
relating to their ability to pay costs and fees and failed to set forth their efforts to obtain counsel
from legal aid or similar services. Accordingly, the court denies Plaintiffs’ Motion for the
Appointment of Counsel. For the reasons herein stated, the court dismisses this action without
prejudice for failure to prosecute or follow orders of the court pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 41(b).
It is so ordered this 21st day of February 2012.

_________________________________
Sam A. Lindsay
United States District Judge

Order – Page 2