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

AUTREY JOE HUBBARD, § ID # 18006108, § § Plaintiff, § § v. § Civil Action No. 3:18-CV-653-L § DALLAS COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPT. § JAIL STAFF, UTMB – PARKLAND § HOSPITAL MEDICAL STAFF AT § JAIL,1 § § Defendants. §

ORDER

On May, 5 2020, United States Magistrate Judge Irma Carrillo Ramirez entered the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation (“Report”) (Doc. 12), recommending that this action be dismissed for failure to state a claim. Specifically, she determined that Plaintiff Autrey Joe Hubbard (“Plaintiff”) failed to assert any viable claims under

against Defendants Dallas County Sheriff’s Department Jail Staff, UTMB – Parkland Hospital Medical Staff at Jail (collectively, “Defendants”). She also recommends that this dismissal count as a “strike” or “prior occasion” within the meaning of

(g). No objections to the Report were filed.2 Having reviewed the pleadings, file, record in this case, and Report, the court determines that the findings and conclusions of the magistrate judge are correct, and accepts them as those of

1 Plaintiff also brings this action against an unidentified female African American nurse, former Dallas County Sheriff Lupe Valdez, and an unidentified female Afro-American Security officer.

2 The docket sheet reflects that the Report was returned undeliverable and was not resent. Thus, Plaintiff did not receive it. The court notes that Plaintiff changed his address on June 8, 2018 (see doc. 11), which is the address to which the Report was mailed, and has not provided an updated address. Plaintiff was notified that failure to provide an updated address may result in dismissal of this action. Doc. 2. The court, therefore, will rule on the Report, as Plaintiff has failed to update his address as required. the court. Accordingly, the court dismisses with prejudice this action under

(e)(2)(B) for failure to state a claim. Further, the dismissal of this action shall count as a “strike” or “prior occasion” within the meaning of

(g). The court prospectively certifies that any appeal of this action would not be taken in good faith. See

(a)(3); Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(3). In support of this certification, the court accepts and incorporates by reference the Report. See Baugh v. Taylor,

, 202 & n.21 (5th Cir. 1997). Based on the Report, the court finds that any appeal of this action would present no legal point of arguable merit and would, therefore, be frivolous. See Howard v. King,

(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,

; Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(S5). It is so ordered this 31st day of May, 2020.

United States District Judge

Order - 2