Griggs v. Warden et al

Filing 6

Order adopting the 5 findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the magistrate judge. The court certifies that any appeal of this action would not be taken in good faith. (Ordered by Judge Sidney A Fitzwater on 4/20/2017) (rekc)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION TONYA GRIGGS, #49288-177, Petitioner, v. WARDEN, et al., Respondents. § § § § § § § 3:17-CV-0101-D ORDER After making an independent review of the pleadings, files, and records in this case, and the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the magistrate judge, the court concludes that the findings and conclusions are correct. It is therefore ordered that the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the magistrate judge are adopted, and petitioner’s petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 is dismissed without prejudice for want of prosecution. The court 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. 24(a)(3). In support of this finding, the court adopts and incorporates by reference the magistrate judge’s findings, conclusions, and recommendation. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 n.21 (5th Cir. 1997). Based on the findings and recommendation, the court finds 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). If petitioner appeals, she may challenge this certification by filing a separate motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal with the Clerk of the Court, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. See Baugh, 117 F.3d at 202; Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(5). SO ORDERED. April 20, 2017. _________________________________ SIDNEY A. FITZWATER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE -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?