Andrews v. Green Oaks

Filing 8

Order Accepting 7 FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE. The court certifies that any appeal of this action would not be taken in good faith. Plaintiff is barred from filing future in forma pauperis actions in this court without first paying the filing fee or obtaining leave from the district judge or the magistrate judge. (Ordered by Judge Sam A Lindsay on 2/27/2015) (twd)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
CHARLES RAY ANDREWS, JR.,
Plaintiff,
v.
GREEN OAKS, Medical City,
Defendant.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

Civil Action No. 3:15-CV-138-L-BK

ORDER
This case was referred to Magistrate Judge Renee Harris Toliver, who entered Findings,
Conclusions and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge (“Report”) on January 20,
2015, recommending that the complaint be summarily dismissed as frivolous. No objections to the
Report were received as of the date of this order.
The magistrate judge concluded that Plaintiff Charles Ray Andrews Jr.’s (“Plaintiff”) claims
are fatally infirm; that he has already pleaded his best case; and that granting leave to amend would
be futile. Additionally, the magistrate judge concluded that Plaintiff “is on a filing spree” and that,
since January 12, 2015, he has filed at least 17 actions. See Report 2.
After reviewing the pleadings, file, record in this case, and Report, the court determines that
the findings and conclusions of the magistrate judge are correct, and accepts them as those of the
court, and dismisses with prejudice this action as frivolous. Plaintiff is barred from filing future
in forma pauperis actions in this court without first paying the filing fee or obtaining leave from the
district judge or the magistrate judge. The court prospectively certifies that any appeal of this action
would not be taken in good faith. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(3). In

Order – Page 1

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 Report, 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). 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).
It is so ordered this 27th day of February, 2015.
_ _______________________________
Sam A. Lindsay
United States District Judge

Order – Page 2