CROSS v. LEE et al

Filing 20

ORDER ADOPTING 16 Report and Recommendations; DENYING 15 Motion to Reopen Case and TERMINATING 19 Motion to Dismiss. Ordered by US DISTRICT JUDGE MARC THOMAS TREADWELL on 6/22/2018. (tlh)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
MACON DIVISION
DARRELL DEMETRIUS CROSS,
Plaintiff,
v.

DEPUTY WARDEN LEE, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:17-CV-247 (MTT)

ORDER
On August 30, 2017, the Court dismissed Plaintiff Darrell Demetrius Cross’s
complaint without prejudice based on the Plaintiff’s failure to pay the required filing fee
and failure to comply with the Court’s order. Doc. 7. On March 14, 2018, the Plaintiff
moved to reopen the case. Doc. 15. United States Magistrate Judge Charles H. Weigle
recommends denying the Plaintiff’s motion, stating that, because “a judgment has
already been rendered in this case, without prejudice, and because Plaintiff does not
provide adequate grounds for reopening that judgment, the better course is for Plaintiff
to raise his claims in a new action.” Doc. 16 at 1. In response, the Plaintiff filed a
“Motion for an Extention [sic] of Time,” which can be construed as an objection. Doc.
17. In that motion, the Plaintiff claims that while he “does have fun[d]s in his account to
pay for a new action,” he is being denied court access because the clerk of the Court,
David Bunt, will not send his § 1983 civil action and IFP application forms and is biased
against him. Id. at 1-2. Thus, the Plaintiff moved for a 30-day extension of time for him

to receive the § 1983 and IFP application forms. Id. at 3. On May 9, 2018, the
Magistrate Judge granted the Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time to the extent the
Plaintiff seeks additional time to file an objection or seeks the forms to file a new action.
Doc. 18. On May 21, 2018, the Plaintiff moved to dismiss his motion for an extension of
time, stating he has brought a new action and, thus, no longer needs an extension of
time. Doc. 19 at 1; see generally Cross v. Hall, et al., No. 5:18-cv-121, Doc. 1 (April 12,
2018). Because the Magistrate Judge has already granted the Plaintiff’s motion for an
extension of time, the Plaintiff’s motion to dismiss is DENIED as moot.
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 has reviewed the
Recommendation and accepts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the
Magistrate Judge. Thus, the Recommendation is ADOPTED and made the order of this
Court. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s Motion to Reopen the Case (Doc. 15) is DENIED, the
Plaintiff’s Motion to Dismiss the Motion for an Extension of Time (Doc. 19) is DENIED
as moot, and Case No. 5:17-cv-247 is TERMINATED.
SO ORDERED, this 22nd day of June, 2018.
S/ Marc T. Treadwell
MARC T. TREADWELL
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

-2-