Order – Page 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

MICHAEL GEOFFREY PETERS, §

§

Plaintiff, §

§

v. § Civil Action No. 3:22-CV-2213-L-BN

§

TEXAS DEP’T OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE; §

GREG ABBOTT; and KEN PAXTON, §

§

Defendants. §

ORDER

On October 7, 2022, the United States Magistrate Judge entered the Findings, Conclusions 

and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge (Doc. 4) (“Report”), recommending 

that the court summarily deny Plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss this action 

with prejudice in light of prior sanctions imposed against him in the United States District Court 

for the Southern District of Texas as a result of his history of filing frivolous and abusive litigation. 

Alternatively, the magistrate recommends that the court dismiss without prejudice this action 

under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g)’s three strike bar unless, within the time to file objections to this 

recommendation or by some other deadline established by the court, Plaintiff pays the full filing 

fee of $402.

On October 25, 2022, the court received and docketed Plaintiff’s objections to the Report. 

Plaintiff’s objections fail to address the magistrate judge’s recommended disposition, and, instead, 

focus on alleged substantive grievances. The court, therefore, overrules Plaintiff’s objections. 

Further, having considered the pleadings, Report, file, and record in this case, and 

conducted a de novo review of that portion of the Report to which object was made, the court 

Case 3:22-cv-02213-L-BN Document 6 Filed 10/31/22 Page 1 of 2 PageID 28
Order – Page 2

determines that the magistrate judge’s findings and conclusions are correct, and accepts them as 

those of the court. Accordingly, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), the court dismisses with 

prejudice this action by Plaintiff, as he has yet to pay the filing fee, and, in failing to address this 

recommended basis for dismissal in his objections, he waived any objection to it. Under §

1915(g), Plaintiff is also barred from proceeding in forma pauperis. The court, therefore, denies 

his request to proceed in forma pauperis. Doc. 3.

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 (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, 

707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983). Plaintiff, however, may challenge this finding pursuant to

Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F. 3d 197 (5th Cir. 1997), by filing a separate motion to proceed in forma 

pauperis on appeal with the Clerk of Court, United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, 

within 30 days of this order. 

It is so ordered this 31st day of October, 2022.

_________________________________

Sam A. Lindsay

United States District Judge

Case 3:22-cv-02213-L-BN Document 6 Filed 10/31/22 Page 2 of 2 PageID 29