Duru v. U-Haul Co of Northern Georgia et al, No. 3:2015cv00436 - Document 7 (N.D. Tex. 2015)

Court Description: Order Accepting 6 Findings and Recommendations: Plaintiff's 3 motion to proceed in forma pauperis is denied as moot. (Ordered by Judge Sidney A Fitzwater on 3/30/2015) (twd)

Download PDF
Duru v. U-Haul Co of Northern Georgia et al Doc. 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION ROSE ADANMA DURU, Plaintiff, V. U-HAUL CO. OF NORTHERN GEORGIA, ET AL. Defendants. § § § § § § § § § § No. 3:15-CV-0436-D ORDER After making an independent review of the pleadings, files, and records in this case, and the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the magistrate judge, the court concludes that the findings and conclusions are correct. It is therefore ordered that the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the magistrate judge are adopted. It is therefore ordered that this action is summarily dismissed without prejudice as duplicative of a pending action, and that plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis is denied as moot. The court 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. P. 24(a)(3). In support of this finding, the court adopts and incorporates by reference the magistrate judge’s findings, conclusions, and recommendation. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 n.21 (5th Cir. 1997). Based on the findings and recommendation, the court finds that any appeal of this action would present no legal point of arguable merit and would, therefore, be Dockets.Justia.com frivolous. Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983). If plaintiff appeals, she may challenge this certification by filing a separate motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal with the Clerk of the Court, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. See Baugh, 117 F.3d at 202; Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(5). SO ORDERED. March 30, 2015. _________________________________ SIDNEY A. FITZWATER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE -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.