Case Name: Susan FLANDER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. TEXAS WORKFORCE COMMISSION; Tom Pauken, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-10-19
Citations: 490 F. App'x 631
Docket Number: No. 12-10414
Parties: Susan FLANDER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. TEXAS WORKFORCE COMMISSION; Tom Pauken, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before WIENER, ELROD, and . GRAVES, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 490
Pages: 631–632

Head Matter:
Susan FLANDER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. TEXAS WORKFORCE COMMISSION; Tom Pauken, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 12-10414
(Summary Calendar).
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Oct. 19, 2012.
Susan Flander, Mesquite, TX, pro se.
Before WIENER, ELROD, and . GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Plaintiff-Appellant Susan Flander, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, sued Defendants-Appellees alleging civil rights violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 1985, and 1986. The district court referred the matter to a magistrate judge who reviewed and examined Plaintiff-Appellant's complaint and related filings in considerable detail and recommended that the complaint be summarily dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). The district court reviewed the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the magistrate judge and the Plaintiff-Appellant's objection thereto, then overruled that objection, accepted the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the magistrate judge, denied a motion to compel by Plaintiff-Appellant, and ordered that her complaint be summarily dismissed pursuant to § 1915(e)(2).
We have reviewed the report of the magistrate judge, the rulings of the district court, the filings of the Plaintiff-Appellant, and the remainder of the record. Although we understand and sympathize with the obvious frustration of Plaintiff-Appellant, we are convinced that the rulings of the district court in this case are correct. Accordingly, its judgment of April 11, 2012 must be, in all respects,
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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.