Jackson v. Dallas County Jail

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION

LAWRENCE GENE JACKSON § #23003214, § § Plaintiff, § § v. § Civil No. 3:23-CV-0350-L-BK § DALLAS COUNTY JAIL, § § Defendant. §

ORDER

The Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge Renée Toliver (“Report”) (Doc. 6) was entered on April 19, 2023, recommending that the Complaint (Doc. 3) filed by pro se Plaintiff Donald Ray Long (“Plaintiff”) be dismissed for failure to comply with a court order and for lack of prosecution. Plaintiff failed to respond to the court’s deficiency order, requiring him to file his civil rights complaint on the court-approved form and to pay the filing fee of $402 or file a request to proceed in forma pauperis by March 20, 2023. As of the date of this order, Plaintiff has not responded to the court’s order or sought an extension of time to do so. Plaintiff did not file objections to the Report, and the time to do so has passed. Having considered the Complaint, Report, file, and record in this case, the court determines that the magistrate judge’s finding and conclusions in the Report are correct, and accepts them as those of the court. Accordingly, the court dismisses without prejudice this action for failure to follow an order of the court and for lack of prosecution. 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 incorporates by reference the Report. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 and n.21 (5th Cir. 1997). Based on the magistrate judge’s Report, the court concludes that any appeal of this action would present no legal point of arguable merit and would therefore be frivolous. Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (Sth Cir. 1983). In the event of an appeal, Plaintiff may challenge this certification by filing a separate motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal with the clerk of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. See Baugh, 117 F.3d at 202; Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(5). It is so ordered this 10th day of May, 2023.

United States District Judge

Order — Page 2