Bradley v. Marx

Filing 23

ORDER: The court determines that the 21 findings and conclusions of the magistrate judge are correct, and accepts them as those of the court. The court dismisses with prejudice this action under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A and 1915(e)(2) 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. (Ordered by Judge Sam A Lindsay on 5/31/2018) (sss)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
§
§
Plaintiff,
§
§
v.
§
§
§
MARX LAW FIRM, JUDGE SUSAN
§
RANKINS; JUDGE KIM COOKS; JUDGE §
MARY BROWN; JUDGE TENA
§
CALLAHAN; JUDGE DENISE GARCIA; §
JUDGE DAVID LOPEZ; and JUDGE
§
*
ANDREA PLUMLEE,
§
§
Defendants.
§
LORENZO L. BRADLEY,

Civil Action No. 3:17-CV-3317-L-BT

ORDER
On February 14, 2018, United States Magistrate Rebecca Rutherford 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. §§ 1915A and 1915(e)(2) for failure to
state any claims upon which relief may be granted. No objections to the Report were filed.
Having reviewed the pleadings, record in this case, and Report, 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 dismisses with prejudice this action under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A and
1915(e)(2) for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted.

*

These Defendants are listed in Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint (Doc. 20), which does not include all
Defendants named in Plaintiff’s earlier pleadings that are listed on the docket sheet; however, the Second Amended
Complaint is the live pleading, and any defendant not listed in the Second Amended Complaint is no longer a party to
this action.
Order – Page 1

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 31st day of May, 2018.

_________________________________
Sam A. Lindsay
United States District Judge

Order – Page 2