Thornton-Bey v. Comerica Bank

Filing 10

Order Accepting 8 Findings and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge. Further, the court admonishes Plaintiff that if he continues to file frivolous lawsuits or lawsuits over which the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the court will impose sanctions as it deems appropriate. The court certifies that any appeal of this action would not be taken in good faith. (Ordered by Judge Sam A Lindsay on 7/31/2013) (axm)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

DeJUAN BURT THORNTON-BEY,
#20791-424,
Plaintiff,
v.
COMERCIA BANK,
Defendant.

Civil Action No. 3:13-CV-1657-L

ORDER
Plaintiff DeJuan Burt Thorton-Bey (“Plaintiff”) brought this action, seeking access to his
grandmother’s bank account. The case was referred to Magistrate Judge Renee Harris Tolliver, who
entered the Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge
(“Report”) on May 19, 2013, recommending that the case be dismissed with prejudice, pursuant to
28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(b) and 1915A(b), to the extent Plaintiff seeks to access his deceased
grandmother’s bank account, and without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction insofar as
he seeks to raise due process, breach of contract, gross negligence, and fraud claims. Additionally,
because this is not the first lawsuit filed by Plaintiff alleging claims pertaining to his access to his
grandmother’s bank account, the magistrate judge also recommended that Plaintiff “should be
WARNED that a history of filing lawsuits, which are frivolous or over which the Court lacks subject
matter jurisdiction, can be grounds for Rule 11 sanctions.” Report 6. Plaintiff filed objections to
the Report, which are postmarked July 9, 2013.

Order – Page 1

Having reviewed the pleadings, file, record in this case, and the findings and conclusions of
the magistrate judge, the court determines that the findings and conclusions of the magistrate judge
are correct, and accepts them as those of the court. Accordingly, the court overrules Plaintiff’s
objections to the Report, dismisses with prejudice Plaintiff’s claims to the extent he seeks to access
his grandmother’s bank account, and dismisses without prejudice for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction any due process, breach of contract, gross negligence, and fraud claims asserted by
Plaintiff.
Further, the court admonishes Plaintiff that if he continues to file frivolous lawsuits or
lawsuits over which the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the court will impose sanctions
as it deems appropriate. The court certifies that any appeal of this action would not be taken in
good faith. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). In support of this finding, the court adopts and
incorporates by reference the Report. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 n.21 (5th Cir. 1997).
Based on the Report, 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).
It is so ordered this 31st day of July, 2013.

_________________________________
Sam A. Lindsay
United States District Judge

Order – Page 2