Opinion
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:15-CV-1434-G (BK)
11-06-2015
HOWARD BLAIN DUDLEY, Plaintiff, v. JUDGE J. NIELL, 18th State District Court, Johnson County, Texas, 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.
It is therefore ORDERED that plaintiff's claims seeking to enjoin his pending state criminal cases are DISMISSED without prejudice in accordance with the abstention doctrine in Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 41 (1971), that the claims challenging the building code violation are DISMISSED without prejudice for want of jurisdiction, and that the claims challenging the imposition of mandatory drug testing and seeking habeas relief are DISMISSED without prejudice to be reasserted in a habeas corpus action.
It is further ORDERED that any claims brought on behalf of plaintiff's wife and two of his daughters are DISMISSED without prejudice to the wife and daughters filing their own actions if appropriate.
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 finding, 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 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). November 6, 2015.
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. --------
/s/ _________
A. JOE FISH
Senior United States District Judge