Bradford v. United States Government

Filing 11

Order Accepting 9 Findings and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge. The court certifies that any appeal of this action would not be taken in good faith. (Ordered by Judge Sam A Lindsay on 7/17/2015) (axm)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
LAKETA DAWN BRADFORD,
Plaintiff,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

Civil Action No. 3:15-CV-1428-L

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 June 22,
2015, recommending that the court summarily dismiss this action as frivolous. As of the date of this
order, Plaintiff has not filed any objections.
Plaintiff has filed a supplemental document and provided “additional information [to be]
added to my case file.” Pl.’s Supplement (Doc. 10), filed June 25, 2015. The supplemental
document describes verbal threats directed toward Plaintiff, states that she is a rape victim, discusses
her interactions with her psychologists and counselors, and also provides a list of different
institutions, such as the Genesis Battered Women Shelter and Duncanville Church of Christ, but it
does not fully explain the significance of this list. This document does not mention the magistrate
judge’s Report, and the court determines that it does not affect the magistrate judge’s
recommendation.
Having reviewed the pleadings, file, and record in this case, and the findings and conclusions
of the magistrate judge, the court determines that the magistrate judge’s findings and conclusions
Order - Page 1

are correct, and accepts them as those of the court. Accordingly, the court summarily dismisses
with prejudice Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint (Doc. 8), filed June 2, 2015.
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
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, she
must pay the $505 appellate filing fee or submit a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”),
unless she has been granted IFP status by the district court. The court will issue a judgment in a
separate document pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 58(a).
It is so ordered this 17th day of July, 2015.

_________________________________
Sam A. Lindsay
United States District Judge

Order - Page 2