Williamsv. Watkins et al, No. 3:2014cv00379 - Document 13 (N.D. Tex. 2014)
Court Description: Order Accepting 11 Findings and Recommendations and Denying Certificate of Appealability. The court certifies that any appeal of this action would not be taken in good faith. (Ordered by Judge Sam A Lindsay on 10/6/2014) (aaa)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Williamsv. Watkins et al Doc. 13 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION CHARLES A. WILLIAMS, #11061262, Plaintiff, v. CRAIG WATKINS, et al., Defendants. § § § § § § § § § Civil Action No. 3:14-CV-379-L ORDER Plaintiff Charles A. Williams (“Plaintiff”) brought this action, asserting various civil rights violations and personal injury claims that allegedly occurred in conjunction with his prior arrest and detention and his ongoing state criminal proceeding. The case was referred to Magistrate Judge David L. Horan, who entered the Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge (“Report”) on August 26, 2014, recommending that the court abstain from exercising jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims for alleged wrongdoing in the ongoing state proceeding and dismiss with prejudice his remaining claims, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), on immunity grounds and failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted. Plaintiff filed objections to the Report. Having reviewed the pleadings, file, record in this case, objections, and Report, the court determines that the findings and conclusions of the magistrate judge are correct, accepts them as those of the court, and overrules Plaintiff’s objections. Accordingly, the court abstains from exercising jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims for alleged wrongdoing in the ongoing state proceeding and dismisses without prejudice these claims. The court dismisses with prejudice Plaintiff’s Order – Page 1 Dockets.Justia.com remaining claims for alleged civil rights violations and personal injury, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), on immunity grounds and failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted. The court certifies that any appeal of this action would not be taken in good faith and denies a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). In support of this finding, the court adopts and incorporates by reference the Report. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 n.21 (5th Cir. 1997). Based on the Report, 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). It is so ordered this 6th day of October, 2014. _________________________________ 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.
