Henderson v. Metropolitan Transportation Authority et al
Filing
15
ORDER: 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, accepts them as those of the court, and denies Plaintif fs' motions to proceed in forma pauperis (Docs. 11 and 12 ), filed 11/13/2014, and dismisses without prejudice this action pursuant to Rule41(b) for want of prosecution. The court prospectively certifies that any appeal of this action would not be taken in good faith. In support of this certification, the court accepts and incorporates by reference the Report and the court's order accepting the Report. Based on the foregoing orders, the Court concludes that any appeal of this action would present no legal point of arguable merit and would therefore be frivolous. (Ordered by Judge Sam A Lindsay on 3/31/2015) (bdb)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
THEODORE J. HENDERSON and
ANNIE L. HENDERSON,
Plaintiffs,
v.
METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION
AUTHORITY, et. al.,
Defendants.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
Civil Action No. 3:14-CV-3708-L-BK
ORDER
The case was referred to Magistrate Judge Renee Harris Toliver, who entered Findings,
Conclusions and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge (“Report”) on February
9, 2015, recommending that this action be dismissed for want of prosecution pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). Plaintiffs have filed no objections as of the date of this order.
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, accepts
them as those of the court, and denies Plaintiffs’ motions to proceed in forma pauperis (Docs. 11
and 12), filed November 13, 2014, and dismisses without prejudice this action pursuant to Rule
41(b) for want of prosecution.
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. 24(a)(3). In support of this certification, the court
accepts and incorporates by reference the Report and the court’s order accepting the Report. See
Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 and n.21 (5th Cir. 1997). Based on the foregoing orders, the
Order - Page 1
court concludes 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). In the event of
an appeal, Plaintiff may challenge this certification by filing a separate motion to proceed in forma
pauperis on appeal with clerk of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. See Baugh,
117 F.3d at 202; Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(5). In the event that Plaintiff files a notice of appeal, he must
pay the $505 appellate filing fee or submit a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”), unless he
has been granted IFP status by the district court.
It is so ordered this 31st day of March, 2015.
_________________________________
Sam A. Lindsay
United States District Judge
Order - Page 2
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?