Williams v. Harter et al, No. 3:2022cv02176 - Document 9 (N.D. Tex. 2022)
Court Description: ORDER accepting 7 Findings and Recommendations. The court dismisses without prejudice this action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The court certifies that any appeal of this action would not be taken in good faith. (Ordered by Judge Sam A. Lindsay on 10/25/2022) (ygl)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Williams v. Harter et al Doc. 9 Case 3:22-cv-02176-L-BN Document 9 Filed 10/25/22 Page 1 of 2 PageID 25 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION CHAUNCIL-DANIELLE, Plaintiff, v. KENNETH S. HARTER, et al., Defendants. § § § § § § § § § § Civil No. 3:22-CV-2176-L-BN ORDER The Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge (“Report”) (Doc. 7) was entered on October 6, 2022, recommending that the Petition for Injunction (“Petition”) (Doc. 3) filed by pro se Plaintiff Chauncil-Danielle (“Plaintiff”), who does not provide a last name, be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. In the Petition, Plaintiff sought injunctive relief for an alleged trespass by Defendants. Plaintiff did not file objections to the Report, and the time to do so has passed. The court notes that on the day the Report was entered, Plaintiff filed by mail a Notice that appears to question the Defendants’ authority to retain legal counsel. Doc. 8. The court determines that the Notice is not an objection to the Report but rather a continued assertion of Plaintiff’s claims that does not cure the subject matter deficiencies identified in the Report. Having considered the Petition, Report, file, Plaintiff’s Notice, and record in this case, the court determines that the magistrate judge’s finding and conclusions in the Report are correct, and accepts them as those of the court. Accordingly, the court dismisses without prejudice this action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Order – Page 1 Dockets.Justia.com Case 3:22-cv-02176-L-BN Document 9 Filed 10/25/22 Page 2 of 2 PageID 26 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). Based on the magistrate judge’s Report, 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 October, 2022. _________________________________ 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.
