Jennings v. United States Federal Claims Court, No. 5:2021cv00141 - Document 15 (N.D. Tex. 2021)

Court Description: ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE, RE: 14 Findings and Recommendations. Accordingly, Jennings's third amended complaint (Dkt. No. 12 ) and the claimswithin it are dismissed without prejudice. Jennings's motions to proceed IFP (Dkt. Nos. 6 ; 9 ) are denied and his motion to acquire real property (Dkt. No. 13 ) is denied as moot. (Ordered by Judge James Wesley Hendrix on 11/16/2021) (krr)

Download PDF
Jennings v. United States Federal Claims Court Doc. 15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS LUBBOCK DIVISION PzuNCE GEORGE JENNINGS, Plaintiff, No. 5:21-CV-141-H LINITED STATES FEDERAL CLAIMS COURT, et a1., Defendants. ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION OF TIIE I.INITED S TATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE Prince George Jennings, proceeding pro se, fiIed an Application for Federal Tort Claim on Jtne 29,2021. Dkt. No. 1. After United States Magisnate Judge Bryant issued orders and notices of deficiency (Dkt. No. 4; 8), Jennings filed an amended complaint (Dkt No. 10), a second amended complaint (Dkt. No. 11), and No. i2), which proceed in is the operative pleading forma paupeis (Dkt. Nos. 6; a third amended complaint (Dkt. in this case. In addition, Jennings filed motions to 9). And lastly, Jennings frled a motion to acquire real property. Dkt. No. 13. Judge Bryant reviewed the complaints and motions, and he submitted findings, conclusions, and a recommendation to this Court. Dkt. No. 14. Judge Bryant recommends that the Court either (1) deny Jennings's motions to proceed IFP and dismiss the action without prejudice under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41@), or (2) dismiss Jennings's action for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and deny the pending motions to proceed IFP. Dkt. No. 74 at9. In addition, Judge Bryant recommends that the Court deny as moot Jennings's motion to acquire real property. Id. Dockets.Justia.com Where no specific objections are filed within the 14-day period, the Court reviews the Magistrate Judge's findings, conclusions, and recommendation only for plain error. Douglass v. United Sens. Auto. Ass'n,79 on other grounds,28 U.S.C. 0 F.3d 1415,1417 (5th Cn. 1996), See superseded by statute 636OX1); Serrano v. Customs & Border Patrol, U.S. Customs & BorderProt.,975F.3d488,502 (5th Cn.2020). Jennings did not file objections within the 14-day period. The Court has examined the record and reviewed the FCR for plain enor. Finding none, the Court accepts and adopts the FCR (Dkt. No. 14). The Court specifically finds that Jennings's action is factually frivolous and insubstantial and, therefore, lacks a basis for subject-matter jurisdiction. In doing so, the Court notes that it has provided Jennings with multiple opportunities to amend his complaint, and he has done so to no effect. Accordingly, Jennings's third amended complaint (Dkt. No. 12) and the claims within it are dismissed without prejudice. Jennings's motions to proceed IFP (Dkt. Nos. 6; 9) are denied and his motion to acqute real property (Dkt. No. 13) is denied as moot. soordered onNou" bq IL,2o2l. &'"/4" JAMES LINIT 2 SLEY HENDRIX STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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.