Noe v. Supreme Court of Alabama (INMATE 1)
ORDERED as follows: 1) Mr. Noe's 4 Objection is OVERRULED; 2) The 3 Recommendation is ADOPTED; 3) Mr. Noe's 2 motion to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED, and his case is DISMISSED without prejudice for Petitioner's failure to pay the full filling fee upon the initiation of this case. Signed by Chief Judge William Keith Watkins on 2/26/2015. (wcl, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
WOODBURCK NOE, # 148475,
ALABAMA SUPREME COURT,
CASE NO. 3:14-CV-1233-WKW
On February 9, 2015, the Magistrate Judge filed a Recommendation that
Petitioner’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis be denied and his case be
dismissed without prejudice for failure to pay the requisite filing fee. (Doc. # 3.)
On February 23, 2015, Petitioner Woodbruck Noe filed an Objection. (Doc. # 4.)
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).
In his objection, Mr. Noe argues that the interest of justice necessitates that a
favorable judgment be entered on his behalf to preserve his First, Fifth, Eighth, and
Fourteenth Amendment rights. Mr. Noe’s Objection is due to be overruled because
he fails to address the Magistrate Judge’s findings regarding his prior civil law suits
and the application of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g)’s three-strike provision to his motion for
leave to proceed in forma pauperis.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED as follows:
Mr. Noe’s Objection (Doc. # 4) is OVERRULED.
The Recommendation (Doc. # 3) is ADOPTED.
Mr. Noe’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. # 2) is DENIED,
and his case is DISMISSED without prejudice for Petitioner’s failure to pay the full
filling fee upon the initiation of this case.
An appropriate final judgment will be entered separately.
DONE this 26th day of February, 2015.
/s/ W. Keith Watkins
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?