Jones v. Bowers et al, No. 3:2022cv02559 - Document 15 (N.D. Tex. 2023)
Court Description: Order Accepting Findings and Recommendations and Denying Certificate of Appealability. The court certifies that any appeal of this action would not be taken in good faith. The court overrules Plaintiff's objections and, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), this action is dismissed without prejudice as a result of Plaintiffs failure to pay the full filing fee of $402. (Ordered by Judge Sam A. Lindsay on 1/19/2023) (svc)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Jones v. Bowers et al Doc. 15 Case 3:22-cv-02559-L-BN Document 15 Filed 01/19/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID 102 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION KEVIN JEROME JONES, Plaintiff, v. MR. BOWERS, et al., Defendants. § § § § § § § § § Civil Action No. 3:22-CV-2559-L-B N ORDER On November 30, 2022, the United States Magistrate Judge entered the Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge (Doc. 4) (“Report”), recommending that the court, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), summarily dismiss without prejudice this action by Plaintiff unless, within the time for filing objections or some other deadline set by the court, he pays the full filing fee of $402. Instead of paying the filing fee or seeking an extension of time to do so, Plaintiff filed objections to the Report (Doc. 5), which are indecipherable. As best as the court is able to ascertain, Plaintiff argues the merits of his claim(s) and objects to the requirement that he pay the full filing fee. Having considered the pleadings, Report, file, and record in this case, and having conducted a de novo review of that portion of the Report to which objection was made, the court determines that the magistrate judge’s findings and conclusions are correct, and accepts them as those of the court. Accordingly, the court overrules Plaintiff’s objections and, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), this action is dismissed without prejudice as a result of Plaintiff’s failure to pay the full filing fee of $402. Order – Page 1 Dockets.Justia.com Case 3:22-cv-02559-L-BN Document 15 Filed 01/19/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID 103 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). Based on the Report, the court finds that any appeal of this action would present no legal point of arguable merit and would, therefore, be frivolous. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983). Plaintiff, however, may challenge this finding pursuant to Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F. 3d 197 (5th Cir. 1997), by filing a separate motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal with the Clerk of Court, United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, within 30 days of this order. It is so ordered this 19th day of January, 2023. _________________________________ 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.
