Elie v. Ashford et al, No. 3:2016cv02032 - Document 7 (N.D. Tex. 2016)
Court Description: Order Accepting Findings and Recommendations. The court certifies that any appeal of this action would not be taken in good faith. Re: 6 Findings and Recommendations on Case re: 3 Complaint filed by Cortez Deon Elie. (Ordered by Judge Sam A Lindsay on 8/15/2016) (epm)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Elie v. Ashford et al Doc. 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION CORTEZ DEON ELIE, # 15059686, Plaintiff, v. GEORGE ASHFORD, III and JUDGE DOMINIQUE COLLINS, Defendants. § § § § § § § § § § Civil Action No. 3:16-CV-2032-L ORDER On July 12, 2016, Plaintiff filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against his attorney and the presiding state district judge in a state criminal case. The case was referred to Magistrate Judge Irma Castillo Ramirez who entered the Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge (“Report”) on July 14, 2016, recommending that the court dismiss Plaintiff’s claims with prejudice as frivolous, for failure to state a claim upon which relief can granted, and for seeking monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§1915(e)(2) & 1915A(b). The magistrate judge further recommended that this dismissal count as a “strike” or “prior occasion” within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). No objections to the Report were filed. After reviewing the pleadings, file, record, 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 dismisses with prejudice this action as frivolous, for failure to state a claim upon which relief can granted, and for seeking monetary relief against a defendant who is Order – Page 1 Dockets.Justia.com immune from such relief, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§1915(e)(2) & 1915A(b). This dismissal will count as a “strike” or “prior occasion” within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). 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. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 and n.21 (5th Cir. 1997). The 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 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 15th day of August, 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.
