IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

JOHNNY ROBERTS, §

§

Plaintiff, §

§

V. § No. 3:95-cv-2412-G-BN

§

JO ANNE B. BARNHART, §

Commissioner of Social Security, §

§

Defendant. §

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Plaintiff Johnny Roberts, appearing pro se, has filed a motion to proceed in

forma pauperis and a motion to appoint counsel in this closed Social Security Case

brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 402. On May 13, 2013, Senior Judge A. Joe Fish

referred the motions to the undersigned for recommendation or determination. 

On April 29, 1996, Judge Barefoot Sanders granted Plaintiff’s motion to remand

for additional administrative proceedings to consider new evidence of Plaintiff’s visual

impairment and participation in rehabilitation and training. See Dkt. No. 26 at 2. The

case was then closed. Judge Sanders assessed attorneys’ fees under the Equal Access

to Justice Act on August 27, 1998. See Dkt. No. 33. 

Now, nearly 15 years later, Plaintiff has filed two documents – a pro se motion

to proceed in forma pauperis and a pro se motion to appoint counsel. See Dkt. Nos. 34

& 35. Neither motion indicates any basis for further proceedings in federal district

court or requiring the assistance of an attorney. Nor do the motions suggest any reason

-1-

 

 Case 3:95-cv-02412-G-BN Document 36 Filed 05/15/13 Page 1 of 3 PageID 13
to re-open this closed lawsuit.

Accordingly, both motions should be denied without prejudice.

Plaintiff also should be instructed that, if he wishes to bring a new civil action

in this Court, he must submit a pleading which includes a “short and plain statement

of the claim showing that [he] is entitled to relief.” FED. R. CIV.P. 8(a)(2). At that time,

in the context of that new action, Plaintiff could seek in forma pauperis status and

request appointment of counsel.

Recommendation

Plaintiff’s motions [Dkt. Nos. 34 & 35] should be denied without prejudice.

A copy of these findings, conclusions, and recommendation shall be served on all

parties in the manner provided by law. Any party who objects to any part of these

findings, conclusions, and recommendation must file specific written objections within

14 days after being served with a copy. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b).

In order to be specific, an objection must identify the specific finding or

recommendation to which objection is made, state the basis for the objection, and

specify the place in the magistrate judge’s findings, conclusions, and recommendation

where the disputed determination is found. An objection that merely incorporates by

reference or refers to the briefing before the magistrate judge is not specific. Failure

to file specific written objections will bar the aggrieved party from appealing the

factual findings and legal conclusions of the magistrate judge that are accepted or

adopted by the district court, except upon grounds of plain error. See Douglass v.

United Services Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1417 (5th Cir. 1996).

-2-

 

 Case 3:95-cv-02412-G-BN Document 36 Filed 05/15/13 Page 2 of 3 PageID 14
DATED: May 15, 2013

_________________________________________

DAVID L. HORAN 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

-3-

 

 Case 3:95-cv-02412-G-BN Document 36 Filed 05/15/13 Page 3 of 3 PageID 15