VANDERFORD v. MCNEIL

Filing 22

ORDER adopting 21 Report and Recommendation. This case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as malicious pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(3)(B)(I) for pla's abuse of the judicial process. All pending motions are DENIED as moot. The 4 motion for temporary restraining order is DENIED. The clerk is directed to close the file. Signed by SENIOR JUDGE LACEY A COLLIER on September 29, 2011. (kvg)

Download PDF
Page 1 of 2 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA PENSACOLA DIVISION PERRY GENE VANDERFORD, Plaintiff, vs. Case No. 3:10cv491/LAC/CJK WALTER MCNEIL, et al., Defendants. ________________________________________________________________ ORDER This cause comes on for consideration upon the magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation dated August 31, 2011. (Doc. 21). The parties have been furnished a copy of the Report and Recommendation and have been afforded an opportunity to file objections pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1). I have made a de novo determination of objections filed. Having considered the Report and Recommendation, and the timely filed objections thereto, I have determined that the Report and Recommendation should be adopted. Accordingly, it is now ORDERED as follows: 1. The magistrate judge's report and recommendation is adopted and incorporated by reference in this order. 2. This case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as malicious pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(3)(B)(I) for plaintiff’s abuse of the judicial process. 3. All pending motions are DENIED as moot. Page 2 of 2 4. The motion for temporary restraining order (doc. 4) is DENIED. 5. The clerk is directed to close the file. DONE AND ORDERED this 29th day of September, 2011. s /L.A. Collier LACEY A. COLLIER SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Case No: 3:10cv491/LAC/CJK

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?