Jennings v. United States of America

Filing 8

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE: Accordingly, Jennings's complaint (Dkt. No. 1) and the claims within it are dismissed without prejudice. All relief not expressly granted, and any pending motions are denied. re: 7 Findings and Recommendations on re: 1 Complaint filed by Prince George Jennings. (Ordered by Judge James Wesley Hendrix on 5/10/2022) (lkw)

Case 5:21-cv-00216-H-BQ Document 8 Filed 05/10/22

Page 1 of 2 PageID 25

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
LUBBOCK DIVISION
PRINCE GEORGE JENNINGS,
Plaintiff,
No.5:21-CV-216-H-BQ

LINITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant.

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE UNITED STATE S MAG ISTRATE ruDGE
Prince George Jennings, proceeding pro se, filed a complaint against the United
States on October 4, 2021,

buthe did not pay the filing fee or submit an application to

proceed in forma pauperis. Dkt. No. 1. In his complaint, Jennings also included a request

for the Court to appoint counsel. Id. Twice, Judge Bryant ordered Jennings to complete the
application to proceed in forma pauperis and to file an amended complaint in compliance

with the federal pleading standards. Dkt. Nos. 4; 6. Jennings failed to do either.
Judge Bryant reviewed the complaint and motion to appoint counsel, and he

submitted findings, conclusions, and a recommendation to this Court. Dkt. No.

7.

Judge

Bryant recommends that the Court either (1) dismiss the action without prejudice under
Rule 41(b) for failure to comply with the Court's orders or (2) dismiss Jennings's complaint

without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Id. at 1. In addition, Judge Bryant
recommends that the Court deny as moot Jennings's motion to appoint counsel.

1d.

Where no speciiic objections are filed within the 14-day period, the Court reviews
the Magrstrate Judge's findings, conclusions, and recommendation only for plain error.
Douglass v. United Serus. Auto. Ass'n,79

F.3d 1415,1417 (sth Cir. 1996),

See

superceded by statute

Case 5:21-cv-00216-H-BQ Document 8 Filed 05/10/22

Page 2 of 2 PageID 26

on other grounds,28 U.S.C. $ 636(bX1); Serrano v. Customs & Border Patrol, U.S. Customs &
Border Pror.,975 F.3d 488, 502

(5th Cir. 2020). Jennings has not filed an objection within

the 14-day period.
The Court has examined the record and reviewed the FCR for plain error. Finding
none, the Court accepts and adopts the FCR (Dkt. No. 7). The Court specifically finds that
Jennings's action is factually frivolous and insubstantial and, therefore, lacks a basis for
subject-matter jurisdiction. In doing so, the Court notes that it has provided Jennings with

multiple oppornrnities to amend his complaint and submit an application to proceed in
forma pauperis, and he failed to do either.
Accordingly, Jennings's complaint (Dkt. No. 1) and the claims within it are
dismissed without prejudice.

All relief not expressly granted, and any pending motions

are

denied.

IWr"'
So ordered sn aetil- t o, 2922.

J

2

ES WESLEY HENDRIX
TED STATES DISTRICT ruDGE