Lietzke v. County of Montgomery et al

Filing 10

Order Accepting Findings and Recommendations re: 6 Findings and Recommendations on Case re: 3 Complaint, filed by Bill Lietzke. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 4) is DENIED, and that Plaintiff is BARRED from filing future in forma pauperis actions in this Court without first seeking leave to file. In addition, Plaintiff is WARNED that the continued submission of frivolous actions and documents may result in the imposition of additional sanctions, including monetary penalties. The Court prospectively CERTIFIES that any appeal of this action would not be taken in good faith. (Ordered by Judge Jane J Boyle on 3/17/2014) (tla)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
BILL LIETZKE,
Plaintiff,
v.
COUNTY OF MONTGOMERY, et al.,
Defendants.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§

CIVIL ACTION NO.:
3:13-CV-4468-B

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 Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis
(Doc. 4) is DENIED, and that Plaintiff is BARRED from filing future in forma pauperis actions in
this Court without first seeking leave to file. In addition, Plaintiff is WARNED that the
continued submission of frivolous actions and documents may result in the imposition of
additional sanctions, including monetary penalties.
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).1 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 17th day of March, 2014.

JANE J. BOYLE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

1

 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.