Robinson v. Brown, No. 3:2019cv02805 - Document 11 (N.D. Tex. 2020)

Court Description: Order Accepting Findings and Recommendations and Denying Certificate of Appealability re: 10 Findings and Recommendations on Case re: 3 Complaint filed by Asraf Robinson. Accordingly, the court dismisses without prejudice this action under Rule 41(b) for failure to prosecute or comply with a court order. (Ordered by Judge Sam A. Lindsay on 8/25/2020) (svc)

Download PDF
Robinson v. Brown Doc. 11 Case 3:19-cv-02805-L-BH Document 11 Filed 08/25/20 Page 1 of 2 PageID 52 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION ASRAF ROBINSON, #2229990, Plaintiff, v. MARIAN BROWN, et al.,* Defendants. § § § § § § § § Civil Action No. 3:19-CV-2805-L-BH ORDER On July 6, 2020, the Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge (“Report”) (Doc. 10) was entered, recommending that the court dismiss without prejudice this action for failure to prosecute or comply with a court order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) as a result of Plaintiff’s failure to file his complaint on the proper form and either pay the requisite filing fee or file a motion to proceed in forma pauperis within thirty days as directed. Although filed as a habeas action, the Report indicates that Plaintiff’s pleadings were liberally construed as a civil rights action arising under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because they do not challenge a conviction or Plaintiff’s custody. They, instead, allege that Plaintiff was assaulted while in custody and received inadequate medical care. No objections to the Report were received as of the date of this order. Having reviewed the pleadings, file, record in this case, and Report, the court determines that the findings and conclusions of the magistrate judge are correct, and accepts them as those of the * Plaintiff’s pleadings indicate that the action is brought against “Marian Brown, et all [sic],” although Marian Brown is the only defendant identified. Doc. 1. Order – Page 1 Dockets.Justia.com Case 3:19-cv-02805-L-BH Document 11 Filed 08/25/20 Page 2 of 2 PageID 53 court. Accordingly, the court dismisses without prejudice this action under Rule 41(b) for failure to prosecute or comply with a court order. 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 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 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 25th day of August, 2020. _________________________________ 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.