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)

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