Henderson v. Atain Insurance Company et al

Filing 46

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS for 25 Report and Recommendations. IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's pending motions are MOOT. The Court will enter final judgment by separate order. Signed by Judge Robert Pitman. (pg)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AUSTIN DIVISION
RICKYE HENDERSON,
Plaintiffs,
v.
ATAIN INSURANCE COMPANY, et al.,
Defendants.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

1:24-CV-1208-RP

ORDER
Before the Court is the report and recommendation of United States Magistrate Dustin
Howell Lane concerning Plaintiff (“Plaintiff”) Rickye Henderson’s application to proceed in forma
pauperis. (Dkt. 2). (R. & R., Dkt. 25). Plaintiff timely filed objections to the report and
recommendation. (Obj., Dkt. 28).
A party may serve and file specific, written objections to a magistrate judge’s findings and
recommendations within fourteen days after being served with a copy of the report and
recommendation and, in doing so, secure de novo review by the district court. 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1)(C). Because Plaintiff timely objected to the report and recommendation, the Court
reviews the report and recommendation de novo. Having done so and for the reasons given in the
report and recommendation, the Court overrules Plaintiff’s objections and adopts the report and
recommendation as its own order.
Accordingly, the Court ORDERS that the report and recommendation of United States
Magistrate Judge Dustin Howell, (R. & R., Dkt. 25), is ADOPTED. IT IS ORDERED that
Plaintiff’s claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s pending motions are MOOT.

1

Further, this is not the first frivolous case Plaintiff has filed with this Court. This Court has
previously dismissed two cases as frivolous under Section 1915. See Henderson v. Buttross, 1:17-CV436-LY, 2017 WL 2391806 (W.D. Tex. June 2, 2017); Henderson v. Soifer, No. 1:24-CV-00771-DIIDH, 2024 WL 4549262, at *1 (W.D. Tex. Sept. 6, 2024). “A district court has jurisdiction to impose
a pre-filing injunction to deter vexatious, abusive, and harassing litigation.” Baum v. Blue Moon
Ventures, 513 F.3d 181, 187 (5th Cir. 2008). District courts are permitted to act sua sponte in imposing
restrictions on future filings. Qureshi v. United States, 600 F.3d 523, 526 (5th Cir. 2010). Plaintiff is
warned against further frivolous filings. If Plaintiff continues to file frivolous pleadings in this Court,
it may result in Plaintiff being barred from future filings without obtaining prior approval from a
federal district or magistrate judge.
The Court will enter final judgment by separate order.
SIGNED on March 5, 2025.

ROBERT PITMAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2