You're viewing Docket Item 13 from the case Pedraza v. Meade. View the full docket and case details.

Download this document:




Case 3:13-cv-02007-N-BK Document 13 Filed 09/20/13 Page 1 of 2 PageID 66

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION










LUIS RANGEL FRIAS, #14131078,
aka MARIO EDUARDO PEDRAZA,

Plaintiff,





v.

DANIEL MEADE,
Defendant.


























§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§



3:13-CV-2007-N-BK

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. Plaintiff/Petitioner 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.



IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that this action is summarily DISMISSED with

prejudice as frivolous. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A(b). The dismissal under

sections 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A(b) will count as a “strike” or “prior occasion” within the

meaning 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).2



The Court CERTIFIES that 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
                                                            
2 Section1915(g), commonly known as the “three-strikes” provision, provides: “[i]n no event shall a prisoner bring a
civil action or appeal a judgment in a civil action or proceeding under this section, if the prisoner has, on 3 or more
prior occasions, while incarcerated or detained in any facility, brought an action or appeal in a court of the United
States that was dismissed on the grounds that it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief
may be granted, unless the prisoner is under imminent danger of serious physical injury.”

Case 3:13-cv-02007-N-BK Document 13 Filed 09/20/13 Page 2 of 2 PageID 67

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 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).

SO ORDERED this 20th day of September, 2013.





















__________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE