Grant v. US Department of the Treasury

Filing 9

ORDER ACCEPTING 6 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE: This action is summarily DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as frivolous. In addition to the $100.00 sanction imposed by Judge McBryde in Case No. 4:18-cv 471-A, becau se Plaintiff persists in filing frivolous, vexatious actions, which reassert claims previously addressed and rejected, he is BARRED from filing future actions in forma pauperis without the prior approval of the Court. The Court prospectively CERTIFIES that any appeal of this action would not be taken in good faith. (Ordered by Judge Ed Kinkeade on 6/28/2018) (sss)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
WILLIAM LEE GRANT, II,
Plaintiff,
v.
US DEPARTMENT OF THE
TREASURY,
Defendant.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

CIVIL NO. 3:18-CV-1479-K

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
The United States Magistrate Judge made Findings, Conclusions, and a
Recommendation in this case. Plaintiff filed objections, and the Court has made a de
novo review of those portions of the proposed findings and recommendation to which
objection was made. The objections are overruled, and the Court ACCEPTS the
Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that this action is summarily DISMISSED
WITH PREJUDICE as frivolous. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). In addition to the
$100.00 sanction imposed by Judge McBryde in Case No. 4:18-cv-471-A, because
Plaintiff persists in filing frivolous, vexatious actions, which reassert claims previously
addressed and rejected, he is BARRED from filing future actions in forma pauperis
without the prior approval of the Court.
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 adopts and incorporates by reference the
Magistrate Judge’s Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation. See Baugh v. Taylor,
117 F.3d 197, 202 and 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). Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a) governs the
time to appeal an order. A timely notice of appeal must be filed even if the district
court certifies an appeal as not taken in good faith.
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 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.
Signed June 28th, 2018.

___________________________
ED KINKEADE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE