Glover-Parker v. Exeter Finance of New York, New York, Irvin, Texas, Pineville, NC etc et al

Filing 7

ORDER ACCEPTING 5 FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE: IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's 4 motion to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED, and that Plaintiff is BARRED from filing future in forma pau peris 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 certifies that any appeal of this action would not be taken in good faith. (Ordered by Judge David C Godbey on 12/8/2014) (twd)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION TRESSA R. GLOVER-PARKER, Plaintiff, v. EXETER FINANCE OF NEW YORK, et al., Defendants. § § § § § § § § 3:14-CV-03845-N-BK ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE The United States Magistrate Judge made Findings, Conclusions, and a Recommendation in this case. No objections were filed. The District Court reviewed the proposed findings, conclusions and recommendation for plain error. Finding none, 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 8th day of December, 2014. __________________________________ 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?