Krupa v. Tinsley et al, No. 3:2017cv03232 - Document 19 (N.D. Tex. 2018)

Court Description: Order Accepting 12 Findings and Recommendations. The court certifies that any appeal of this action would not be taken in good faith. The court overrules Plaintiff's objections, and dismisses with prejudice this action as frivolous. (Ordered by Judge Sam A Lindsay on 5/24/2018) (epm)

Download PDF
Krupa v. Tinsley et al Doc. 19 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION JOHN D. KRUPA, #1082952, Plaintiff, v. JUDGE FRED TINSLEY; WILLIAM STEPHENSON; FAITH JOHNSON; and CLAIRE FOSTER, Defendants. § § § § § § § § § § Civil Action No. 3:17-CV-3232-L-BN ORDER This case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge David L. Horan, who entered the Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge (“Report”) on November 29, 2017, and the Supplemental Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge (“Supplemental Report”) on April 4, 2018, recommending that this action brought by pro se prisoner John D. Krupa (“Plaintiff”) under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 be summarily dismissed as frivolous. Plaintiff filed objections to the Report and Supplemental Report, contending that he has been incarcerated since 2002 without a jury trial or conviction in violation of his constitutional rights; that the judgment (presumably in his criminal case) is void; that Article 11.07 should not bar review and reversal of the void judgment and conviction; and that the magistrate judge’s findings and conclusions are void because he did not consent to proceed before the magistrate judge. Plaintiff’s objections are not supported by the facts or law relevant to this case or the record. Accordingly, after carefully reviewing the pleadings, file, record in this case, Report, and Supplemental Report, and having conducted a de novo review of the portions of the Report and Order – Page 1 Dockets.Justia.com Supplement Report to which objection was made, the court determines that the findings and conclusions of the magistrate judge are correct, accepts them as those of the court, overrules Plaintiff’s objections, and dismisses with prejudice this action as frivolous. 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 and Supplemental 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 24th day of May, 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.