Securities and Exchange Commission v. McDuff et al, No. 3:2008cv00526 - Document 75 (N.D. Tex. 2016)

Court Description: ORDER Accepting 72 Findings and Recommendations. The court denies 61 Motion to Set Aside Judgment. The court prospectively certifies that any appeal of this action would not be taken in goodfaith. (Ordered by Judge Sam A Lindsay on 10/17/2016) (epm)

Download PDF
Securities and Exchange Commission v. McDuff et al Doc. 75 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, Plaintiff, v. GARY L. MCDUFF, et al., Defendants. § § § § § § § § § Civil Action No. 3:08-CV-526-L ORDER Before the court is Defendant Gary L. McDuff’s (“Defendant”) Motion to Set Aside Void Judgment for Defective Service of Process Under Rule 60(b)(4) (Doc. 61), filed June 8, 2016. On September 20, 2016, Magistrate Judge Renée Harris Toliver the entered Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge (“Report”), recommending that the court deny the Motion to Set Aside Void Judgment for Defective Service of Process Under Rule 60(b)(4). As of the date of this order, no objections to the Report were received. After reviewing the motion, briefs, 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 denies the Motion to Set Aside Void Judgment for Defective Service of Process Under Rule 60(b)(4) (Doc. 61). 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. 24(a)(3). In support of this certification, the court accepts and incorporates by reference the Report and the court’s order accepting the Report. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 and n.21 (5th Cir. 1997). Based on the foregoing orders, the Order – Page 1 Dockets.Justia.com 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. 24(a)(5). It is so ordered this 17th day of October, 2016. _________________________________ Sam A. Lindsay United States District Judge Order – Page 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.