Gillion v. Weaver et al

Filing 16

ORDER approving and adopting in their entirety the 13 Proposed Findings and Recommended Disposition as this Court's findings in all respects; dismissing without prejudice Hoard's claims for failure to pay the filing fee or file an Applic ation to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees and Affidavit; dismissing without prejudice Gillion's claims for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; and certifying that an in forma pauperis appeal from this Order adopting the recommendations would not be taken in good faith. Signed by Judge James M. Moody Jr. on 7/28/2017. (ljb)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
NORTHERN DIVISION
MICHELE GILLION; et al.
v.

PLAINTIFFS
1:17CV00033-JM

NANCY WEAVER, CEO; et al.

DEFENDANTS
ORDER

The Court has reviewed the Proposed Findings and Recommended Disposition submitted
by United States Magistrate Judge Joe J. Volpe on July 10, 2017. Magistrate Volpe
recommended that Plaintiff Hoard’s claims be dismissed without prejudice for failing to comply
with his order to submit either (1) the statutory filing fee of $400.00 or (2) a properly completed
Application to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees and Affidavit, with the required calculation
sheet prepared and signed by an authorized official of the detention center at which he is
confined, within thirty (30) days. (Doc. No. 5) Despite having been granted an extension of
time (Doc. 10), Plaintiff Hoard failed to comply with this order by the deadline.1 After carefully
considering the objections and making a de novo review of the record, the Court concludes that
the Proposed Findings and Recommended Disposition should be, and hereby are, approved and
adopted in their entirety as this Court's findings in all respects.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that:
1.

Plaintiff Hoard’s claims are DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to pay the

filing fee or file an Application to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees and Affidavit.
2.

Plaintiff Gillion’s claims are DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to state a

1 Plaintiff Hoard did file an untimely motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis on the same day that the
Proposed Findings and Recommendations was filed; however, the required calculation sheet was not included and
has yet to be submitted.

claim upon which relief may be granted.
3.

The Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that an in forma pauperis

appeal from this Order adopting the recommendations would not be taken in good faith.
DATED this 28th day of July, 2017.

_______________________________________
JAMES M. MOODY, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE