Opinion
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:18-CV-2680-G (BK)
12-10-2018
JAY BRODSKY, AND DONNA MARTIN, Plaintiffs, v. NEIMAN MARCUS GROUP, INC., ET AL., Defendants.
ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS , CONCLUSIONS, 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.
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 adopts and incorporates by reference the magistrate judge's findings, conclusions, and recommendation. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 and n.21 (5th Cir. 1997). Based on the findings and recommendation, the court finds 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 (5th 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 Court, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. See Baugh, 117 F.3d at 202; FED. R. APP. P. 24(a)(5).
Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a) governs the time to appeal an order. A timely notice of appeal must be filed even if the district court certifies an appeal as not taken in good faith. --------
SO ORDERED. December 10, 2018.
/s/ _________
A. JOE FISH
Senior United States District Judge