Nguyen v. Motel 6 et al

Filing 24

Order Accepting 18 Findings and Recommendations. The court certifies that any appeal of this action would not be taken in good faith. (Ordered by Judge Sam A Lindsay on 4/4/2017) (epm)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION LINDA NGUYEN, Plaintiff, v. MOTEL 6, et al., Defendants. § § § § § § § § Civil Action No. 3:16-CV-3365-L ORDER On March 8, 2017, United States Magistrate Judge David L. Horan entered the Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge (“Report”), recommending that the court dismiss this action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Petitioner filed a response to the Report on March 19, 2017, and other correspondence on March 14, 2017, which the court construes as objections to the Report. Plaintiff, who is pro se, also filed correspondence, which the clerk docketed on March 14, 2017, as a “MOTION to append statements” (“Motion”) (Doc. 17). In this motion, Plaintiff contends that her rights to legal counsel and a fair hearing were violated. Having reviewed the pleadings, motion, file, record in this case, and Report, and having conducting 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, accepts them as those of the court, overrules Plaintiff’s objections, denies her Motion (Doc. 17), and dismisses without prejudice this action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 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 Order – Page 1 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 the 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 4th day of April, 2017. _________________________________ 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?