Watts v. Southern Health Partners et al

Filing 16

Order Accepting 11 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. (Ordered by Judge Sam A Lindsay on 11/24/2015) (twd)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
MICHAEL WATTS, #68598,
Plaintiff,
v.
SOUTHERN HEALTH PARTNERS
AND DR. MONGARE,
Defendants.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

Civil Action No. 3:15-CV-1721-L

ORDER
This case was referred to Magistrate Judge Renée Harris Toliver, who entered Findings,
Conclusions and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge (“Report”) on October 8,
2015, recommending that this action be dismissed with prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§
1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A(b) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The
magistrate judgment further recommended that Plaintiff not be allowed to amend his pleadings, and
that this dismissal should count as a “strike” or “prior occasion” under 18 U.S.C. § 1915(g). No
objections to the Report were received as of the date of this order, and, according to the docket, the
Report that was mailed to the address provided by Plaintiff on October 21, 2015, was returned as
undeliverable.
After considering the pleadings, file, the record, and Report, the court determines that the
findings and conclusions of the magistrate judge are correct, and accepts them as those of the court.
Accordingly, the court dismisses with prejudice this action, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§
1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and 1915(b), for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. This
dismissal shall count as a “strike” or “prior occasion” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
Order – Page 1

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. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 and
n.21 (5th Cir. 1997). 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. 24(a)(5).
It is so ordered this 24th day of November, 2015.

_________________________________
Sam A. Lindsay
United States District Judge

Order – Page 2