Jennings v. United States of America, No. 5:2021cv00216 - Document 8 (N.D. Tex. 2022)

Court Description: ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE: Accordingly, Jennings's complaint (Dkt. No. 1) and the claims within it are dismissed without prejudice. All relief not expressly granted, and any pending motions are denied. re: 7 Findings and Recommendations on re: 1 Complaint filed by Prince George Jennings. (Ordered by Judge James Wesley Hendrix on 5/10/2022) (lkw)

Download PDF
Jennings v. United States of America Doc. 8 Case 5:21-cv-00216-H-BQ Document 8 Filed 05/10/22 Page 1 of 2 PageID 25 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS LUBBOCK DIVISION PRINCE GEORGE JENNINGS, Plaintiff, No.5:21-CV-216-H-BQ LINITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant. ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATE S MAG ISTRATE ruDGE Prince George Jennings, proceeding pro se, filed a complaint against the United States on October 4, 2021, buthe did not pay the filing fee or submit an application to proceed in forma pauperis. Dkt. No. 1. In his complaint, Jennings also included a request for the Court to appoint counsel. Id. Twice, Judge Bryant ordered Jennings to complete the application to proceed in forma pauperis and to file an amended complaint in compliance with the federal pleading standards. Dkt. Nos. 4; 6. Jennings failed to do either. Judge Bryant reviewed the complaint and motion to appoint counsel, and he submitted findings, conclusions, and a recommendation to this Court. Dkt. No. 7. Judge Bryant recommends that the Court either (1) dismiss the action without prejudice under Rule 41(b) for failure to comply with the Court's orders or (2) dismiss Jennings's complaint without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Id. at 1. In addition, Judge Bryant recommends that the Court deny as moot Jennings's motion to appoint counsel. 1d. Where no speciiic objections are filed within the 14-day period, the Court reviews the Magrstrate Judge's findings, conclusions, and recommendation only for plain error. Douglass v. United Serus. Auto. Ass'n,79 F.3d 1415,1417 (sth Cir. 1996), See superceded by statute Dockets.Justia.com Case 5:21-cv-00216-H-BQ Document 8 Filed 05/10/22 Page 2 of 2 PageID 26 on other grounds,28 U.S.C. $ 636(bX1); Serrano v. Customs & Border Patrol, U.S. Customs & Border Pror.,975 F.3d 488, 502 (5th Cir. 2020). Jennings has not filed an objection within the 14-day period. The Court has examined the record and reviewed the FCR for plain error. Finding none, the Court accepts and adopts the FCR (Dkt. No. 7). 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 oppornrnities to amend his complaint and submit an application to proceed in forma pauperis, and he failed to do either. Accordingly, Jennings's complaint (Dkt. No. 1) and the claims within it are dismissed without prejudice. All relief not expressly granted, and any pending motions are denied. IWr"' So ordered sn aetil- t o, 2922. J 2 ES WESLEY HENDRIX TED STATES DISTRICT ruDGE

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.