# Robinson v. Brown

> District Court, N.D. Texas · August 25, 2020

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10449017

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, N.D. Texas
- **Decided:** August 25, 2020
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10449017

## Opinion text

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
ASRAF ROBINSON, #2229990, §
§
Plaintiff, §
v. § Civil Action No. 3:19-CV-2805-L-BH
§
MARIAN BROWN, et al.,* §
§
Defendants. §
ORDER
On July 6, 2020, the Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation of the United States
Magistrate Judge (“Report”) (Doc. 10) was entered, recommending that the court dismiss without
prejudice this action for failure to prosecute or comply with a court order under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 41(b) as a result of Plaintiff’s failure to file his complaint on the proper form and either
pay the requisite filing fee or file a motion to proceed in forma pauperis within thirty days as
directed. Although filed as a habeas action, the Report indicates that Plaintiff’s pleadings were
liberally construed as a civil rights action arising under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because they do not
challenge a conviction or Plaintiff’s custody. They, instead, allege that Plaintiff was assaulted while
in custody and received inadequate medical care. No objections to the Report were received as of
the date of this order.
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 the
* Plaintiff’s pleadings indicate that the action is brought against “Marian Brown, et all [sic],” although Marian
Brown is the only defendant identified. Doc. 1.
Order – Page 1
court. Accordingly, the court dismisses without prejudice this action under Rule 41(b) for failure
to prosecute or comply with a court order.
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 certification, the court
accepts and incorporates by reference the Report. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 and
n.21 (Sth Cir. 1997). The court concludes 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 United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit. See Baugh, 117 F.3d at 202; Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(5).
It is so ordered this 25th day of August, 2020.

“Sam A. Lindsay 1.
United States District Judge

Order — Page 2

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10449017. Public record. Not legal advice.