Jennings v. United States of America et al, No. 5:2021cv00144 - Document 14 (N.D. Tex. 2021)

Court Description: Order Accepting Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge re: 13 Findings and Recommendations on re: 1 Complaint filed by Prince George Jennings. Accordingly, Jennings's third amended complaint (Dkt. No. 11) and the claims within it are dismissed without prejudice. A11 relief not expressly granted, and any pending motions are denied. (Ordered by Judge James Wesley Hendrix on 11/16/2021) (bdg)

Download PDF
Jennings v. United States of America et al Doc. 14 Case 5:21-cv-00144-H-BQ Document 14 Filed 11/16/21 Page 1 of 2 PageID 49 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS LUBBOCK DIVISION PRINCE GEORGE JENNINGS, P1aintiff, No. 5:21-CV-144 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. et al., Defendants. ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND R-ECOMMENDATION OF THE UMTED STATE S MAGISTRAT JUDGE Prince George Jennings, proceeding pro se, flled a civil-rights complaint against the United States of America, the Jennings Family Trust Trustees, and the Unrted States Federal Claims Court on l.u],y 9,2021. Dkt. No. l. After United States Magistrate Judge Bryant issued orders and notices of deficiency (Dkt. Nos. 4; 8), Jennings flled a second (Dkt. No. 10) and third amended complaint (Dkt. No. 11), which is rhe operative pieading in this case. In addition, plaintiffs original compiaint included a motion to appoint counsel (Dkt. No. 1), and plaintifffiled a motion to proceed in forma paupeis (Dkt. No. 6). And lastly, Jennings filed a motion for federal response. Dkt. No. 12. Judge Bryant reviewed the complaints and motions, and he submitted findings, conclusions, and a recommendation to this Court. Dkt. No. 13. 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(b), or (2) dismiss Jennings's action for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and deny the pending motions to proceed IFP. Dkt. No. 13 at 9. In additron, Judge Bryant recommends that the Court deny as moot Jennings's motion to appoint counsel. 1d. Dockets.Justia.com Case 5:21-cv-00144-H-BQ Document 14 Filed 11/16/21 Page 2 of 2 PageID 50 Where no specific objections are filed within the 14-day period, the Courr reviews the Magistrate Judge's findings, conclusions, and recommendation only for plain er,or. Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass'n,79F.3d1415,1417 (sth Ck.1996), See superseded by statute onothergrounds,23 U.S.C. $ 636(b)(1); Serrano y. Customs & Border Patrol, U.S. Custonls & Border Prot., 975 F.3d 488, 502 (sth Ct. 2020). Jennings has not filed an objection 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. 13). The Court specifically finds that Jennings' 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. 11) and the claims within it are dismissed without prejudice. A11 relief not expressly granted, and any pending motions are denied. So ordered on November IL 2021. JAMES UNITT 2 ESLEY 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.