Lindsay v. Radford et al, No. 3:2017cv01579 - Document 35 (N.D. Tex. 2018)

Court Description: Order Accepting 33 Findings and Recommendations on Case re: 3 Complaint. The court certifies that any appeal of this action would not be taken in good faith. (Ordered by Judge David C Godbey on 5/11/2018) (epm)

Download PDF
Lindsay v. Radford et al Doc. 35 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION DONTE RASHAD LINDSAY, Plaintiff, v. J. RADFORD, et al., Defendants. ' ' ' ' ' ' ' 3:17-CV-01579-N-BK ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE The United States Magistrate Judge made findings, conclusions and a recommendation in this case. No objections were filed. The District Court reviewed the proposed findings, conclusions and recommendation for plain error. Finding none, the Court ACCEPTS the Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 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. P. 24(a)(3). In support of this certification, the Court adopts and incorporates by reference the Magistrate Judge’s Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 and 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 frivolous. Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983).1 In the event of an appeal, Plaintiff may challenge this certification by filing a separate motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal 1 Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a) governs the time to appeal an order. A timely notice of appeal must be filed even if the district court certifies an appeal as not taken in good faith. Dockets.Justia.com 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 this 11th day of May, 2018. _________________________________ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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.