Mangram v. Darden
ORDER re: 6 Report and Recommendation. Despite the Plaintiff's failure to file Objections, the Court REJECTS the Magistrate Judge's 6 Report recommending dismissal of Plaintiff's Complaint for failure to follow this Court's Orders and failure to prosecute. Plaintiff should not receive a strike in this case because he moved to dismiss the case prior to the Court's dismissal on other grounds. The Court also DENIES Plaintiff's 4 Motion for Reimbursement. The Court DISMISSES Plaintiff's 1 Complaint without prejudice and DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to enter the appropriate judgment of dismissal and to CLOSE this case. Signed by Chief Judge Lisa G. Wood on 12/19/2016. (csr)
In t|ie tliniteli States! Btsitnct Court
:lfQr t|ie ^onttiem Biotritt of d^eorgtn
DAN W. MANGRAM,
CIVIL ACTION NO.: 2:16-cv-49
RICHARD M. DARDEN,
Presently before the Court is the Magistrate Judge's
October 26, 2016, Report and Recommendation,
which Plaintiff failed to file Objections.
(dkt. no. 6), to
failure to file Objections, the Court REJECTS the Magistrate
Judge's Report recommending dismissal of Plaintiff's Complaint
for failure to follow this Court's Orders and failure to
for the reasons stated below,
Court DISMISSES Plaintiff's Complaint without prejudice.^
^ The Magistrate Judge also recommended that this action be dismissed
without prejudice. However, the Magistrate Judge's reasoning for that
dismissal—Plaintiff's failure to prosecute and failure to follow the
Court's Orders—would result in a ^'strike" against Plaintiff under the
Prison Litigation Reform Act's three strikes provision, 28 U.S.C.
Plaintiff should not receive a strike in this case because
he moved to dismiss the case prior to the Court's dismissal on other
grounds. Andrews v. Persley, No. 16-11943, 2016 WL 5390340 (11th Cir.
Court also DENIES Plaintiff's Motion for Reimbursement,
In his letter requesting the return of his filing fee,
Plaintiff states that he ^^made a mistake by filing this [case]
with the Federal Court."
Though Plaintiff does not
specifically request dismissal, it is clear that he no longer
intends to pursue this cause of action in this Court.
Consequently, the Court construes Plaintiff s pleading as a
notice of dismissal and DISMISSES this action WITHOUT PREJUDICE
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A).
However, the Court cannot reimburse Plaintiff's filing fee
upon his voluntary dismissal.
260, 261 (2d Cir. 2001)
See Coins v. Decaro, 241 F.3d
(The Prison Litigation Reform Act makes
no provision for return of filing fees upon withdrawal of
action; refund claim also encounters barrier of sovereign
immunity because funds have become property of United States);
CIVA 1:06CV1959 MHS,
(N.D. Ga. Oct. 10, 2006)
2006 WL 2917381,
(denying refund of filing fee despite
plaintiff's admission that she did not file action properly);
Morris v. Bush, No. 108-CV-00208-MP-AK,
(N.D. Fla. Dec. 9, 2008)
2008 WL 5231843, at *2
(^'[W]hen a complaint is dismissed, the
filing fee is not refimded to the Plaintiff.").
the Court DENIES Plaintiff s request for the refund of his
The Court DISMISSES Plaintiff's Complaint without prejudice
and DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to enter the appropriate judgment
of dismissal and to CLOSE this case
SO ORDERED, this (^
LISA ^DBEY WOOD, CHIEF JUDGE
unitz!d states district court
5QUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
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?