Estes v. Eastridge, No. 7:2020cv00098 - Document 34 (N.D. Tex. 2021)

Court Description: Order Accepting Findings and Recommendations re: 33 Findings and Recommendations on Motion re: 31 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis filed by Jim B Estes, 29 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis filed by Jim B Estes. (Ordered by Chief Judge Barbara M. G. Lynn on 12/6/2021) (wxc)

Download PDF
Estes v. Eastridge Doc. 34 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS WICHITA FALLS DIVISION JIM B. ESTES, TDCJ No. 1003415, Plaintiff, v. JOSEPH M. EASTRIDGE, et al., Defendants. § § § § § § § § § § Civil Action No. 7:20-cv-00098-M-BP ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE The United States Magistrate Judge made Findings, Conclusions, and a Recommendation in this case. No objections were filed. The District Court reviewed the proposed Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation for plain error. Finding none, the Court ACCEPTS the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge. It is therefore ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis filed on September 1, 2021 (ECF No. 29) and Motion Seeking Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis on Appeal filed on September 14, 2021 (ECF No. 31) are DENIED. The Court CERTIFIES that the appeal of this action is not 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 adopts and incorporates by reference the Magistrate Judge's Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 & n.21 (5th Cir. 1997). Based on the Findings and Recommendation, the Court finds that the appeal of this action presents no legal point of arguable merit and is, therefore, frivolous. Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983) (per curiam). Dockets.Justia.com Plaintiff may challenge this certification by filing a separate motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal with the Clerk of the Court, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. See Baugh, 117 F.3d at 202; Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(5). SO ORDERED this 6th day of December, 2021. 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.