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)

Download PDF
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.

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?