Hampton v. Hampton et al, No. 3:2017cv01833 - Document 18 (N.D. Tex. 2018)

Court Description: Order Accepting 14 Findings and Recommendations. The court certifies that any appeal of this action would not be taken in good faith. The court also denies as moot 16 Plaintiff's request for a hearing. (Ordered by Judge Sam A Lindsay on 4/2/2018) (axm)

Download PDF
Hampton v. Hampton et al Doc. 18 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION JOYCE MARIE HAMPTON, Plaintiff, v. GLENDA M. HAMPTON, et al., Defendants. § § § § § § § § Civil Action No. 3:17-CV-1833-L-BT ORDER The case was referred to Magistrate Judge Paul D. Stickney,* who entered the Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge (“Report”) on September 13, 2017, recommending that the court dismiss with prejudice as frivolous this action under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). On the same date, Judge Stickney denied Plaintiff’s Motion for Emergency Hearing. No objections to the Report were filed, but Plaintiff filed an Addendum for Emergency Hearing on September 13, 2017 (Doc. 16), in which she again requests a hearing. After carefully reviewing the pleadings, file, record in this case, and Report, the court determines that the findings and conclusions of the magistrate judge are correct, accepts them as those of the court, and dismisses with prejudice this action as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). The court also denies as moot Plaintiff’s request for a hearing (Doc. 16). 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 incorporates by reference the Report. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 and n.21 (5th Cir. * By Special Order No. 3-316, all matters referred to Judge Stickney were automatically referred to United States Magistrate Judge Rebecca Rutherford on January 26, 2018, after Judge Stickney’s retirement. Order – Page 1 Dockets.Justia.com 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 the clerk of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. See Baugh, 117 F.3d at 202; Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(5). It is so ordered this 2nd day of April, 2018. _________________________________ 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.