Bonanno v. Greer
ORDER: the Court ACCEPTS and ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Carter's findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations pursuant to § 636(b)(1) and Rule 72(b); Plaintiff's Objections (Doc. 4 ) are OVERRULED; Plain tiff's Motion for Leave to Proceed on Appeal In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 1 ) and Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 5 ) are DENIED AS MOOT; and this case is hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Signed by District Judge Harry S Mattice, Jr on 10/10/2012. (BJL)***Mailed to Louis Bonnano. Modified file date on 10/11/2012 (BJL).
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
LOUIS BONANNO, SR.,
Case No. 2:12-cv-68
Magistrate Judge Carter
On March 5, 2012, United States Magistrate Judge William Carter filed his
Report and Recommendation (Doc. 3) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b). Magistrate Judge Carter recommended that Plaintiff’s
action be dismissed with prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)1 and that
Plaintiff’s application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis be denied as moot.
Plaintiff filed his “Motion: in ‘Objection’ and for a Evidentiary Review, and to
Void Judgment Order, as a Matter of Law or Right to Appeal.”2 (Doc. 4). However,
Plaintiff’s objections are merely reiterations of the original arguments raised in his
Complaint. (See Doc. 2; Doc. 4 at 1-5). Further analysis of these same issues would be
cumulative and is unwarranted in light of Magistrate Judge Carter’s well-reasoned and
In proceedings in forma pauperis, a district court must dismiss the case if it determines at any time that
the action (1) is frivolous or malicious, (2) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or (3)
seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
2 Plaintiff also filed a “Motion: Notice to Appeal Order/Recommendation” which was construed as an
objection to the report and recommendation. (See Doc. 7). However, these objections were untimely
filed, and moreover, were cumulative of those arguments contained in Plaintiff’s initial objections.
well-supported Report and Recommendation, in which he fully addressed Plaintiff’s
Accordingly, the Court ACCEPTS and ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Carter’s
findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations pursuant to § 636(b)(1) and
Rule 72(b); Plaintiff’s Objections (Doc. 4) are OVERRULED; Plaintiff’s Motion for
Leave to Proceed on Appeal In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 1) and Plaintiff’s Motion for
Summary Judgment (Doc. 5) are DENIED AS MOOT; and this case is hereby
DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
SO ORDERED this 10th day of October, 2012.
/s/ Harry S. Mattice, Jr._______
HARRY S. MATTICE, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets were retrieved from PACER, and should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.