Glenn v. Methodist Charlton Medical Center

Filing 13

ORDER: The court determines that the 10 findings and conclusions of the magistrate judge are correct, and accepts them as those of the court. Accordingly, the court dismisses without prejudice this case for lack of jurisdiction. (Ordered by Judge Sam A Lindsay on 1/11/2017) (sss)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
LAUNIUS ROBERT GLENN, for
Anita Doris Glenn,
Petitioner,
v.
METHODIST CHARLTON
MEDICAL CENTER, et. al.,
Respondents.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

Civil Action No. 3:16-CV-3131-L

ORDER
On December 7, 2016, United States Magistrate Judge Renée Harris Toliver entered the
Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge (“Report”),
recommending that the court dismiss without prejudice this action for lack of jurisdiction.* No
objections to the Report were received as of the date of this order.
After considering 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. Accordingly, the court dismisses without prejudice this case for lack of jurisdiction. The
court is directed to term any pending motions in this case.
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.(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

*

As noted in the Report, Petitioner originally brought this action against Methodist Charlton Medical Center.
After the Report issued, Petitioner filed an amended pleading in which he identifies several other Respondents. The court
determines that the addition of these new Respondents does not affect the magistrate judge’s analysis or recommendation
that the case should be dismissed without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction.
Order – Page 1

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. See Howard v. King, 707
F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983). In the event of an appeal, Petitioner may challenge this certification
by filing a separate motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal with the 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). If
Petitioner files a notice of appeal, he must pay the $505 appellate filing fee or submit a motion to
proceed in forma pauperis.
It is so ordered this 11th day of January, 2017.

_________________________________
Sam A. Lindsay
United States District Judge

Order – Page 2