Winningham et al v. Rothrock et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
FORT WORTH DIVISION
G LENN W INNINGHAM, ET AL .,
Plaintiffs,
v. 	No. 4:25-cv-01299-P
R. J OSEPH ROTHROC, ET AL .,
Defendants.
ORDER
The United States Magistrate Judge made Findings, Conclusions,
and a Recommendation (FCR) in this case. ECF No. 16. Plaintiff filed
objections to the FCR on January 20, 2026. ECF No. 20.
The Court has conducted a de novo review of the following:
1. 	The pleadings and record;
2. 	The FCR of the United States Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 16);
3. 	The Plaintiff’s written objections to the FCR (ECF No. 20); and
4. 	The applicable law.
The Court, having conducted a de novo of the FCR in accordance with
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), concludes that the findings and conclusions of the
Magistrate Judge are correct and adopts them as the findings and
conclusions of the Court.
Plaintiff titled his recent filing as “Notice of Objection to the Fake
Wannabe Judge and his Finds and Conclusions.” ECF No. 20. His filing
contains over a hundred pages of incoherent and threatening language.
See generally ECF No. 20. Some notable threats include Plaintiff stating,
“. . . all you need to do is name a date, time, and place and I will come
armed and we can settle it for once and for all . . .” ECF No. 20 at 56.
And:
[I]f I blow one of your PIGs brains out first, then the first
words out of my mouth will be, “:Gee I am so sorry, I
Case 4:25-cv-01299-P Document 22 Filed 01/23/26 Page 1 of 3 PageID <pageID>

2
thought he wanted to do a commercial transaction!!!”, and
any blood shed will be on your hands, because I should
know better than to think you BAR member scum would
honor 	your 	oath 	of 	office, 	you 	lying 	perjuring
treasonous Satanist mother fucking son of a bitch
(no disrespect to dogs intended)!!
ECF 	No. 	20 	at 	56 	(emphasis 	in 	original). 	Plaintiff’s 	filing 	is
incomprehensible 	and, 	despite 	its 	length, 	does 	not 	articulate 	any
cognizable objection to the FCR.
Accordingly, 	it 	is 	ORDERED 	that 	Plaintiff’s 	objections 	are
OVERRULED, and the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of
the Magistrate Judge are ADOPTED.
The 	Court 	thus 	DECLARES 	Glenn 	Winningham 	a 	vexatious
litigant. The Court ORDERS that (1) monetary sanctions may be
imposed on Plaintiff for future vexatious litigation considered to be
abusive and harassing in nature, and (2) that Plaintiff must obtain leave
of court by filing a motion before he is permitted to file any additional
complaints1 in this District.
Additionally, Plaintiff has recently began filing documents in cases
that have been closed for over a decade. See, e.g., Demand for IRS 1099
Series Documents, Winningham v. Page et al., dismissed, No. 067-
263565-13., 2013 WL 5385127, at *1 (N.D. Tex.), ECF No. 11. Given the
tone and nature of the filings, the Court finds it appropriate to and
hereby does ORDER that Plaintiff must obtain leave of court by filing
a motion before he is permitted to file any additional documents in
closed cases in this District.
Moreover, the deficiencies noted above in Plaintiff’s Objection are
equally evident in Plaintiff’s Complaint. See generally ECF No. 1. The
Complaint 	is 	devoid 	of 	any 	legally 	cognizable 	claim 	and, 	in 	its
incoherence, borders on unintelligible. See generally ECF No. 1. The
Complaint “fail[s] to provide the barest notice of any cause of action.”
1Including the filing of a repleaded complaint upon removal.
Case 4:25-cv-01299-P Document 22 Filed 01/23/26 Page 2 of 3 PageID <pageID>

3
Boswell v. Honorable Governor of Tex., 138 F. Supp. 2d 782, 786 (N.D.
Tex. 2000).
Pro se pleading are held to a less stringent standard. Haines v.
Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520–21 (1972). But the Court cannot be left to
speculate on the nature of Plaintiff’s claims. Boswell, 138 F. Supp. 2d at
786. In fact, Plaintiff “wholly failed to sufficiently plead the elements of,
or legal conditions for, any cause of action against Defendants.” Id.
Therefore, “dismissal of Plaintiff[’s] claims is warranted based on [his]
failure to provide an intelligible complaint in compliance with the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.” Id.
The Court thus DISMISSES the above-captioned case without
prejudice.
SO ORDERED on this 23rd day of January 2026.
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-01299-P Document 22 Filed 01/23/26 Page 3 of 3 PageID <pageID>