Wilson v. Bank of America

Middle District of Florida, flmd-8:2016-cv-02102

ORDER overruling {{39}} --objections; adopting {{38}} --REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS; denying {{36}} --motion for leave to appeal in forma pauperis. Signed by Judge Steven D. Merryday on 2/13/2017. (BK)

Interested in this case?

Current View

Full Text

PageID 201 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION FREDDIE WILSON, Plaintiff, v. CASE NO. 8:16-cv-2102-T-23AAS BANK OF AMERICA, Defendant. ____________________________________/ ORDER The magistrate judge recommends (Doc. 38) denying Freddie Wilson's motion (Doc. 36) for leave to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis. Specifically, the magistrate judge finds that Wilson's motion (Doc. 36) fails to comply with Rule 24(a), Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, because "the absence of any specified issues on appeal leads [the magistrate judge] to conclude that the appeal is not taken in good faith." A good faith inquiry "is limited to whether the appeal involves 'legal points arguable on their merits (and therefore not frivolous).'" Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983) (per curiam). Wilson objects (Doc. 39) to the report and recommendation. After de novo review by the district court of the report and recommendation, Wilson's objections (Doc. 39) are OVERRULED, and the report and recommendation (Doc. 38) is ADOPTED. Wilson's motion (Doc. 36) to proceed on PageID 202 appeal in forma pauperis is DENIED. In accord with Rule 24, Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, the clerk is directed to notify the court of appeals. Under Rule 24(a)(5), within thirty days of service of this order, Wilson can move in the court of appeals to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis. The motion under Rule 24(a)(5) must include a copy of the affidavit (Doc. 36) filed in the district court and the district court's statement of reasons for denying the motion to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis. ORDERED in Tampa, Florida, on February 13, 2017. -2-