Castleberry v. Rahming (INMATE 2) (LEAD)

Filing 7

ORDER directing as follows: (1) the 4 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge is ADOPTED; (2) Mr. Castleberry's 5 objections are OVERRULED; and (3) this case is DISMISSED without prejudice for plf's failure to pay the initial partial filing fee. Signed by Chief Judge William Keith Watkins on 9/5/17. (djy, )

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHERN DIVISION ADAM CASTLEBERRY, #212769, Plaintiff, v. WILCOTT RAHMING, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CASE NO. 2:17-CV-252-WKW [WO] ORDER Before the court is the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Doc. # 5), to which Plaintiff Adam Castleberry filed objections (Doc. # 5). The court has conducted an independent and de novo review of those portions of the Recommendation to which objection is made. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). The Recommendation favored dismissal of Mr. Castleberry’s complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1)(A) for his failure to pay the initial partial filing fee. Mr. Castleberry objected to this disposition on the grounds that he had filed multiple requests to pay the fee from his prisoner account, and that he planned to send in another such request. On this basis, the Magistrate Judge then granted Mr. Castleberry an extension, ordering that he pay the partial fee on or before July 28, 2017. (Doc. # 6.) Mr. Castleberry has not paid the fee, so the Recommendation is due to be adopted. Accordingly, it is ORDERED as follows: 1. The Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Doc. # 4) is ADOPTED; 2. Mr. Castleberry’s objections (Doc. # 5) are OVERRULED; and 3. This case is DISMISSED without prejudice for Plaintiff’s failure to pay the initial partial filing fee. A final judgment will be entered separately. DONE this 5th day of September, 2017. /s/ W. Keith Watkins CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?