Jennings v. Naman Howell Smith & Lee PLLC

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
FORT WORTH DIVISION
CHRISTIAN L. JENNINGS, 	§
§
Plaintiff, 	§
§
v. 	§ 	Civil Action No. 4:25-cv-821-P
§
NAMAN HOWELL SMITH & LEE PLLC 	§
§
Defendant. 	§
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
On November 17, 2025, U.S. District Judge Mark T. Pittman entered an order and
judgment dismissing pro se Plaintiff’s amended complaint with prejudice. See ECF Nos. 20, 21.
Plaintiff has since filed an application to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis (IFP), which was
referred to the undersigned. See ECF Nos. 23, 24.
To proceed IFP on appeal, Plaintiff must show that he is a pauper and that he will raise a
nonfrivolous issue on appeal. See Jackson v. Dallas Police Dep’t, 811 F.2d 260, 261 (5th Cir.
1986) (citations omitted). After reviewing Plaintiff’s application, the Court concludes that he
should not be permitted to proceed IFP on appeal. Plaintiff has not fully complied with Federal
Rule of Appellate Procedure 24(a)(1), which requires him to file an affidavit that contains specific
information regarding his appeal, including his inability to pay. See F ED . R. APP. P. 24(a)(1)(A)–
(C). Even if Plaintiff can show that he is a pauper, he fails to demonstrate that his appeal will raise
a nonfrivolous issue. Plaintiff does not state the specific issues that he intends to present on appeal.
See id. at 24(a)(1)(C).
Case 4:25-cv-00821-P Document 27 Filed 12/01/25 Page 1 of 3 PageID <pageID>

2
For these reasons, the Court RECOMMENDS that Plaintiff’s application for leave to
proceed IFP on appeal be DENIED without prejudice to his right to seek similar relief in the
United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. See id. at 24(a)(5).
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO OBJECT TO PROPOSED
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION
AND CONSEQUENCES OF FAILURE TO OBJECT
Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), each party to this action has the right to serve and file specific
written objections in the United States District Court to the United States Magistrate Judge’s
proposed findings, conclusions and recommendation within fourteen (14) days after the party has
been served with a copy of this document. The United States District Judge need only make a de
novo determination of those portions of the United States Magistrate Judge’s proposed findings,
conclusions and recommendation to which specific objection is timely made. 	See 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1). 	Failure to file, by the date stated above, a specific written objection to a proposed
factual finding or legal conclusion will bar a party, except upon grounds of plain error or manifest
injustice, from attacking on appeal any such proposed factual findings and legal conclusions
accepted by the United States District Judge. See Douglass v. United Servs. Auto Ass’n, 79 F.3d
1415, 1428–29 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc), superseded by statute on other grounds, 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1) (extending time to file objections from ten to fourteen days).
ORDER
Under 28 U.S.C. § 636, it is hereby ORDERED that each party is granted until December
15, 2025, to serve and file written objections to the United States Magistrate Judge’s proposed
findings, conclusions and recommendation. It is further ORDERED that if objections are filed
Case 4:25-cv-00821-P Document 27 Filed 12/01/25 Page 2 of 3 PageID <pageID>

3
and the opposing party chooses to file a response, the response shall be filed within seven (7) days
of the filing date of the objections.
SIGNED December 1, 2025.
____________________________________
JEFFREY L. CURETON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 4:25-cv-00821-P Document 27 Filed 12/01/25 Page 3 of 3 PageID <pageID>