Jordan v. Social Security Administration et al
Order Accepting Findings and Recommendations re: 7 Findings and Recommendations on Case re: 2 Complaint, filed by Stevie C Jordan; granting 8 Motion (construed as a motion to amend complaint). (Ordered by Judge Sam A Lindsay on 12/29/2016) (mem)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
STEVIE C. JORDAN,
ADMINISTRATION, SSI, HHSC, DHA,
Civil Action No. 3:16-CV-3270-L
This pro se action was referred to Magistrate Judge Renee Harris Toliver, who entered the
Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge (“Report”) on
December 6, 2016, recommending that the court dismiss the action. The Report determined that
Plaintiff’s complaint alleged substantially the same facts, events, and defendants as Plaintiff’s
previous lawsuits in Case No. 3:15-CV-1086-B-BH. Accordingly, the Report concluded that this
action is duplicative and should be dismissed as malicious and frivolous. No objections have been
filed to the report; however, on December 8, 2016, Plaintiff filed Plaintiff, “Qui Tam” Original
Complaint’s for Monetary Relief Request for Disclosure Only, Affidavit, Exhibits, Certificate of
Service, Amendment List (Doc. 8) . The court construes this motion as a motion to amend Plaintiff’s
complaint and grants the motion to amend. Although the amended complaint, is much longer than
the one-line original complaint, the amended complaint continues to allege claims that are
duplicative of those asserted by Plaintiff in his prior lawsuit.
Order – Page 1
Having reviewed the amended complaint, file, Report, and record in this case, the court
determines that even with the amended complaint the findings and conclusions of the magistrate
judge are correct, and accepts them as those of the court. The court dismisses this action with
It is so ordered this 29th day of December, 2016.
Sam A. Lindsay
United States District Judge
Order – Page 2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?