Jennings v. Naman Howell Smith & Lee PLLC

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
FORT WORTH DIVISION
CHRISTIAN L. J ENNINGS,
Plaintiff,
v. 	No. 4:25-cv-0821-P
N AMAN , H OWELL , SMITH, & L EE, PLLC,
Defendant.
ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND
RECOMMENDATION OF THE
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
On October 20, 2025, the United States Magistrate Judge issued
Findings, Conclusions, and a Recommendation (“FCR”) in this case.
FCR, ECF No. 18. The FCR recommended the Court dismiss all claims
against Defendant with prejudice. ECF No. 18 at 1. Plaintiff filed an
Objection to the FCR on October 20, 2025. Objection, ECF No. 19. The
Court accordingly conducted a de novo review of the FCR and dismissed
the claims on November 17, 2025. ECF Nos. 20, 21. Plaintiff has since
filed an application to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis, which was
referred to Judge Cureton. ECF Nos. 23, 24. Judge Cureton issued his
Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations on December 1, 2025,
recommending that Plaintiff’s application for leave to proceed IFP on
appeal. ECF No. 27. Plaintiff objected on December 2, 2025. ECF No. 28.
As detailed below, after conducting a de novo review of Judge
Cureton’s 	analysis 	and 	the 	Plaintiff’s 	objections, 	the 	Court 	will
DISMISS without prejudice Plaintiff’s IFP application on appeal,
ADOPT the reasoning in the Magistrate Judge’s FCR and OVERRULE
Plaintiff’s Objections.
LEGAL STANDARD
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.
Case 4:25-cv-00821-P Document 30 Filed 01/09/26 Page 1 of 2 PageID <pageID>

2
Dallas Police Dep’t, 811 F.2d 260, 261 (5th Cir. 1986) (cleaned up). In
doing 	so, 	Plaintiff 	must 	comply 	with 	Federal 	Rule 	of 	Appellate
Procedure 24(a)(1) and file an affidavit asking for information about his
appeal including his financial status. See Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(1)(A)-(C).
And in doing so, Plaintiff must demonstrate that his appeal will raise a
nonfrivolous issue.
ANALYSIS
As 	likewise 	explained 	by 	Judge 	Cureton, 	Plaintiff 	has 	not
demonstrated that he will raise a nonfrivolous issue on appeal and has
failed to comply with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 24(a)(1) by
not filing information demonstrating his inability to pay on appeal.
Plaintiff’s objections in no way alter this analysis.
CONCLUSION
Having conducted a de novo review of the Magistrate Judge’s FCR
and Plaintiff’s Objections, the Court DISMISSES without prejudice
Plaintiff’s IFP application on appeal, ADOPTS the reasoning in the
Magistrate Judge’s FCR, and OVERRULES Plaintiff’s Objections.
SO ORDERED on this 9th day of January 2026.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
FORT WORTH DIVISION
REGINALEA KEMP ,
Plaintiff,
v. 	No. 4:23-cv-00841-P
REGIONS BANK ET AL .,
Defendants.
ORDER
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Unopposed Motion for Leave to File
Second Amended Complaint. ECF No. 18. Having considered the Motion
and applicable docket entries, the Court GRANTS the Motion.
SO ORDERED on this 18th day of September 2023.
______________________________________________
Mark T. Pittman
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 4:25-cv-00821-P Document 30 Filed 01/09/26 Page 2 of 2 PageID <pageID>