Blimline v. Thirty Unknown Employees of the Securities and Exchange Commission et al

Filing 16

Order Adopting 12 Findings and Recommendations. The court certifies that any appeal of this action would not be taken in good faith. Plaintiff's 12/1/2015 motion for default judgment is denied. (Ordered by Judge Sidney A Fitzwater on 12/30/2015) (jrr)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
JOSEPH S. BLIMLINE, #18029-078,
Plaintiff,
v.
THIRTY UNKNOWN EMPLOYEES OF
THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
COMMISSION, et al.,
Defendants.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

3:15-CV-3166-D

ORDER
After making an independent review of the pleadings, files, and records in this case, and the
findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the magistrate judge, the court concludes that the
findings and conclusions are correct. It is therefore ordered that the findings, conclusions, and
recommendation of the magistrate judge are adopted.
Plaintiff’s motion in his objections to recuse the magistrate judge is denied. He did not move
to recuse her until after she recommended that his lawsuit be dismissed. Moreover, the court is
deciding this matter de novo, meaning that it has independently concluded that this action should
be dismissed until plaintiff satisfies the conditions set forth in Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477
(1994).
Plaintiff’s December 1, 2015 motion for default judgment is denied.
Accordingly, it is ordered that this action is summarily dismissed with prejudice as frivolous
until such time as plaintiff satisfies the conditions set forth in Heck. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)
and 1915A(b). This dismissal will count as a “strike” or “prior occasion” within the meaning of 28
U.S.C. § 1915(g).

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 finding, the court
adopts and incorporates by reference the magistrate judge’s findings, conclusions, and
recommendation. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 n.21 (5th Cir. 1997). Based on the
findings and recommendation—which the court has reviewed de novo—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, United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. See Baugh, 117
F.3d at 202; Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(5).
SO ORDERED.
December 30, 2015.

_________________________________
SIDNEY A. FITZWATER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

-2-