Susan Flander v. Texas Workforce Commission, et al, No. 12-10414 (5th Cir. 2012)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 12-10414 Document: 00512026264 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/19/2012 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED October 19, 2012 No. 12-10414 (Summary Calendar) Lyle W. Cayce Clerk SUSAN FLANDER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. TEXAS WORKFORCE COMMISSION; TOM PAUKEN, Defendants-Appellees. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas (3:12-CV-526) Before WIENER, ELROD, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Plaintiff-Appellant Susan Flander, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, sued Defendants-Appellees alleging civil rights violations under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, and 1986. The district court referred the matter to a magistrate judge who reviewed and examined Plaintiff-Appellant s complaint and related filings in considerable detail and recommended that the complaint be summarily dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). The district court * Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. Case: 12-10414 Document: 00512026264 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/19/2012 No. 12-10414 reviewed the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the magistrate judge and the Plaintiff-Appellant s objection thereto, then overruled that objection, accepted the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the magistrate judge, denied a motion to compel by Plaintiff-Appellant, and ordered that her complaint be summarily dismissed pursuant to § 1915(e)(2). We have reviewed the report of the magistrate judge, the rulings of the district court, the filings of the Plaintiff-Appellant, and the remainder of the record. Although we understand and sympathize with the obvious frustration of Plaintiff-Appellant, we are convinced that the rulings of the district court in this case are correct. Accordingly, its judgment of April 11, 2012 must be, in all respects, AFFIRMED. 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.