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)

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.