Gonzalez v. Herrman

Southern District of Texas ENTERED UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT severe □□ SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION PRISCILLA GONZALEZ, § Plaintiff, V. : CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:22-CV-00282 GREGORY HAMPTON HERRMAN, et al., : Defendants. : ORDER ADOPTING MEMORANDUM & RECOMMENDATION Before the Court is Magistrate Judge Mitchel Neurock’s Memorandum and Recommendation (“M&R”). (D.E. 83). The M&R recommends that the Court deny Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal, (D.E. 74), and certify that Plaintiff's appeal is not taken in good faith.

The parties were provided proper notice of, and the opportunity to object to, the Magistrate Judge’s M&R. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); FED. R. Civ. P. 72(b); General Order No. 2002-13. No objection has been filed. When no timely objection has been filed, the district court need only determine whether the Magistrate Judge’s M&R is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir. 1989) (per curiam); Powell v. Litton Loan Servicing, L.P., No. 4:14-CV-02700, 2015 WL 3823141, at *1 (S.D. Tex. June 18, 2015) (Harmon, J.) (citation omitted).

Having reviewed the proposed findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge, the filings of the parties, the record, and the applicable law, and finding that the M&R is not clearly erroneous or contrary to law, the Court ADOPTS the M&R in its entirety. (D.E. 83). Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs motion to proceed in forma pauperis and CERTIFIES that Plaintiffs appeal 1/2 is not taken in good faith because it presents no non-frivolous issue. (D.E. 74). In so holding, the Court incorporates by reference its order granting summary judgment. (D.E. 40); Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 (Sth Cir. 1997).

SO ORDERED.

DA . MORALES UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Dated: Corpus Christi, Texas November 7 63024 2/2