Case Name: Teresa Ward COOPER; Jay S. Cooper, Plaintiffs-Appellants v. UNITED STATES of America; Charles H. Brown, III; Approximately fifteen Unknown Agents of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security; One Unknown Agent of the United States Postal Service; Two Unknown Agents of the Federal Bureau of Prisons, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-01-06
Citations: 628 F. App'x 307
Docket Number: No. 14-40998
Parties: Teresa Ward COOPER; Jay S. Cooper, Plaintiffs-Appellants v. UNITED STATES of America; Charles H. Brown, III; Approximately fifteen Unknown Agents of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security; One Unknown Agent of the United States Postal Service; Two Unknown Agents of the Federal Bureau of Prisons, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before REAVLEY, SMITH, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 628
Pages: 307–307

Head Matter:
Teresa Ward COOPER; Jay S. Cooper, Plaintiffs-Appellants v. UNITED STATES of America; Charles H. Brown, III; Approximately fifteen Unknown Agents of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security; One Unknown Agent of the United States Postal Service; Two Unknown Agents of the Federal Bureau of Prisons, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 14-40998
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Jan. 6, 2016,
Teresa Ward Cooper, Plano, TX, pro se.
Jay S. Cooper. Plano, TX, pro se.
Bradley Elliot Visosky, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Plano, TX, Defendant-Appellee.
Before REAVLEY, SMITH, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
The judgment of the district court is affirmed for the following reasons. Plaintiffs have complained of. property taken from their home in Plano in 2010. Thereafter they have filed several lawsuits for related complaint. A judgment was rendered in one case on October 14, 2011, dismissing without prejudice and ordering monetary sanctions against Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs failed to appeal and have never complied with the sanctions order.
Subsequently, the present suit has been dismissed without prejudice because Plaintiffs simply disregarded the court's order. The court acted under the law and its discretion in doing so. See In the Matter of United Markets Int'l 24 F.3d 650, 654 (5th Cir.1994). If Plaintiffs could not afford costs of suit without hardship, they might be financially eligible to proceed IFP. In this case, however, no effort has been made to obey the previous court order, and the district court has certified that the appeal is not taken in good faith.
AFFIRMED.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.