From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hill v. Cox

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION
Oct 25, 2011
Civil Action No. 3:11-cv-1209-O (N.D. Tex. Oct. 25, 2011)

Opinion

Civil Action No. 3:11-cv-1209-O

10-25-2011

LANGFORD EARL HILL, #573648, Plaintiff, v. WILLIAM D. COX, Defendant.


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. Plaintiff filed objections, and the District Court has made a de novo review of those portions of the proposed findings and recommendation to which objection was made. The objections are overruled, and the Court ACCEPTS the Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge.

The Court CERTIFIES that, in the event Plaintiff seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal, any appeal of this action would not be taken in good faith. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). In support of this finding, the Court adopts and incorporates by reference the Order accepting the findings, conclusions and recommendation of the magistrate judge. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 n.21 (5th Cir. 1997). Based on the above Order, 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).

Reed O'Connor

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE


Summaries of

Hill v. Cox

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION
Oct 25, 2011
Civil Action No. 3:11-cv-1209-O (N.D. Tex. Oct. 25, 2011)
Case details for

Hill v. Cox

Case Details

Full title:LANGFORD EARL HILL, #573648, Plaintiff, v. WILLIAM D. COX, Defendant.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION

Date published: Oct 25, 2011

Citations

Civil Action No. 3:11-cv-1209-O (N.D. Tex. Oct. 25, 2011)

Citing Cases

Williams v. Ritenour

West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). It is well established that an attorney does not act under color of…