Malone v. Unidentified Parole Board Members et al

Filing 18

Order Accepting Findings and Recommendations. The court certifies that any appeal of this action would not be taken in good faith. Accordingly, the court overrules Plaintiffs objections, denies Plaintiffs Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis 7 , and dismisses with prejudice this action as frivolous, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). (Ordered by Judge Sam A Lindsay on 6/7/2016) (mem)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
MARVIN L. MALONE, #411853,
Plaintiff,
v.
GARY JOHNSON, et al.,
Defendants.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

Civil Action No. 3:15-CV-3717-L

ORDER
Plaintiff Marvin L. Malone (“Plaintiff”) filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to
challenge his parole revocation against Defendants Gary Johnson, Carl Jefferies, Geraid Garret, and
Board of Texas Pardons and Paroles.* The case was referred to Magistrate Judge Renée Harris
Toliver, who entered Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate
Judge (“Report”) on April 25, 2016, recommending that the court deny Plaintiff’s Application to
Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 7), filed December 14, 2015, and dismiss with prejudice this action
as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). The magistrate judgment further recommended that
Plaintiff not be allowed to amend his pleadings. Objections to the Report were received and docketed
on May 12, 2016.
After considering the Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, pleadings, file, record, and
Report, and having conducted a de novo review of that portion of the Report to which objection was
made, the court determines that the findings and conclusions of the magistrate judge are correct, and

*

Plaintiff’s abandoned his claims against Defendants Unidentified Parole Board Members and Parole Officers
in his Amended Complaint. On January 5, 2016, the magistrate judge, therefore, directed the clerk of the court to
terminate these Plaintiffs as parties.
Order – Page 1

accepts them as those of the court. Accordingly, the court overrules Plaintiff’s objections, denies
Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 7), and dismisses with prejudice this
action as frivolous, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). As Plaintiff previously abandoned
his claims against Defendants Unidentified Parole Board Members and Parole Officers, the court
dismisses without prejudice Plaintiff’s claim against these Defendants.
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 7th day of June, 2016.

_________________________________
Sam A. Lindsay
United States District Judge

Order – Page 2