Robinson v. Corbett et al

Filing 14

ORDER:, Order Accepting Findings and Recommendations 10 and dismissing with prejudice action; denying Plaintiff's motions for discovery and appointment of counsel [7,8]. The court certifies that any appeal of this action would not be taken in good faith. (Ordered by Judge Sam A Lindsay on 11/30/2017) (chmb)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
ROYAL DOUGLAS ROBINSON,
TDCJ #2066342,
Plaintiff,
v.
AUGUSTUS CORBETT and
STANLEY R. MAYS,
Defendants.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

Civil Action No. 3:17-CV-2931-L-BN

ORDER
On October 26, 2017, United States Magistrate Judge David L. Horan entered the Findings,
Conclusions and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge (“Report”), recommending
that this action be dismissed with prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) for failure to state
a claim on which relief may be granted and, for the same reason, deny Plaintiff’s Motion for
Appointment of Counsel (Doc. 7) and Plaintiff’s First Request for Production of Documents (Doc.
8), both of which were filed October 24, 2017. Plaintiff filed objections to the Report, which were
docketed on November 7, 2017.
Having reviewed the pleadings, record in this case, and Report, and having conducted 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, and accepts them as those of the court.
Accordingly, the court overrules Plaintiff’s objections; denies Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment
of Counsel (Doc. 7); denies Plaintiff’s First Request for Production of Documents (Doc. 8); and

Order – Page 1

dismisses with prejudice this action under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) for failure to state a claim
on which relief may be granted.
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. 24(a)(3). In support of this certification, the court
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. P. 24(a)(5).
It is so ordered this 30th day of November, 2017.

_________________________________
Sam A. Lindsay
United States District Judge

Order – Page 2