Robinson v. Corbett et al, No. 3:2017cv02931 - Document 14 (N.D. Tex. 2017)

Court Description: ORDER:, Order Accepting Findings and Recommendations 10 and dismissing with prejudice action; denying Plaintiff's motions for discovery and appointment of counsel [7,8]. The court certifies that any appeal of this action would not be taken in good faith. (Ordered by Judge Sam A Lindsay on 11/30/2017) (chmb)
Download PDF
Robinson v. Corbett et al Doc. 14 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION ROYAL DOUGLAS ROBINSON, TDCJ #2066342, Plaintiff, v. AUGUSTUS CORBETT and STANLEY R. MAYS, Defendants. § § § § § § § § § § § Civil Action No. 3:17-CV-2931-L-BN ORDER On October 26, 2017, United States Magistrate Judge David L. Horan entered the Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge (“Report”), recommending that this action be dismissed with prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted and, for the same reason, deny Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel (Doc. 7) and Plaintiff’s First Request for Production of Documents (Doc. 8), both of which were filed October 24, 2017. Plaintiff filed objections to the Report, which were docketed on November 7, 2017. Having reviewed the pleadings, record in this case, and Report, and having conducted a de novo review of that portion of the Report to which objection was made, 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 overrules Plaintiff’s objections; denies Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel (Doc. 7); denies Plaintiff’s First Request for Production of Documents (Doc. 8); and Order – Page 1 Dockets.Justia.com dismisses with prejudice this action under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted. 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. 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 30th day of November, 2017. _________________________________ Sam A. Lindsay United States District Judge Order – Page 2