JACKSON v. MCLAUGHLIN et al

Filing 76

ORDER ADOPTING 68 Report and Recommendations; DENYING as moot 54 Motion for Leave to Appeal; DENYING as moot 62 Motion for Request of Final Disposition; DENYING as moot 66 Motion for Open Court Hearing; and DENYING as moot 71 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis. Ordered by US DISTRICT JUDGE MARC THOMAS TREADWELL on 1/23/2018. (tlh)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
MACON DIVISION
JAMON DEMETRIUS JACKSON,
Plaintiff,
v.
Warden GREGORY MCLAUGHLIN, et
al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:16-cv-142 (MTT)

ORDER
Before the Court is the Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge
Stephen Hyles. Doc. 68. The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
remanded this matter to this Court for determination of when the Plaintiff filed his Notice
of Appeal. Doc. 50. The Court then referred the matter to the Magistrate Judge to
make that factual finding. Doc. 64. The Magistrate Judge determined that the Plaintiff
filed his Notice of Appeal, at the earliest, on approximately March 5, 2017, which was
outside of the thirty days for filing an appeal, and thus the Magistrate Judge determined
the notice was untimely filed. Doc. 68 at 6. The Plaintiff filed a motion to reconsider the
Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation. Doc. 69. The Court construes that motion as an
objection to the Recommendation. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the Court has
considered the Plaintiff’s objection and has made a de novo determination of the
portions of the Recommendation to which the Plaintiff objects. The Court accepts and
adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Magistrate Judge. The
Recommendation is ADOPTED and made the order of this Court.

The Plaintiff’s “Motion for Leave to Proceed with This Appeal” (Doc. 54); “Motion
for Request of Final Disposition” (doc. 62); and “Motion for Open Court Hearing” (Doc.
66) are DENIED as moot. Additionally, since entry of the Magistrate Judge’s Report
and Recommendation, the Plaintiff has moved for leave to proceed in forma pauperis.
Doc. 71. Because judgment has been entered in this case and the only remaining issue
is when the plaintiff filed his notice of appeal, the Plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed
IFP is DENIED as moot. To the extent the Plaintiff’s motion to proceed IFP is intended
to serve as a motion for leave to appeal IFP, the motion is DENIED. The Plaintiff has
already filed such a motion (Docs. 45, 46), and the Court found the appeal was not
brought in good faith and denied the motion. Doc. 53 at 3. In his current motion, the
Plaintiff provides no reason to reconsider that finding.

SO ORDERED, this 23rd day of January, 2018.
S/ Marc T. Treadwell
MARC T. TREADWELL, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

-2