Hanna v. Bossier Parish Correctional Center et al

Filing 68

ORDER denying 67 Motion to Stay; denying 67 Motion for Leave to Appeal; denying 67 Motion for Leave to Appeal in forma pauperis. Signed by Judge Elizabeth E Foote on 1/6/2014. (crt,Haik, K)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
SHREVEPORT DIVISION

MARK HANNA

CIVIL ACTION NO. 12-494

VERSUS

JUDGE ELIZABETH ERNY FOOTE

BOSSIER PARISH CORRECTIONAL
CENTER, et al

MAGISTRATE JUDGE MARK HORNSBY

MEMORANDUM ORDER
Before the Court is a Motion to Stay, for Leave to Appeal and to Proceed In

Forma Pauperis on Appeal [Record Document 67], filed by Plaintiff, Mark Hanna. In his
motion, Plaintiff requests that this Court stay this proceeding and grant Plaintiff leave to
appeal the magistrate judge’s denial of Plaintiff’s Motion for Change of Venue [See
Record Documents 63 and 61, respectively]. In support of his position, Plaintiff appears
to allege that the magistrate judge improperly “intercepted the motion [for change of
venue] where he reviewed the decisions he had previously entered[,]” 1 in reference to
an earlier order denying two motions to compel filed by Plaintiff [Record Document 53].
Plaintiff further requests leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal.
Notwithstanding Plaintiff’s unfounded and unsupported allegations to the
contrary, there has been no derivation from the proper legal procedures commonly

1

The Court can find no such review by the magistrate judge of decisions previously entered and
therefore finds no grounds which might merit any further review of Plaintiff’s nonsensical argument. The
only mention of the previous order consists of one sentence, which serves merely to recount the
procedural history of the case: “The court denied two of his motions to compel. Doc. 53.” See Record
Document 63, p. 1.

used by the Court during the course of this proceeding. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1)(A) and Local Rule 72.1, a magistrate judge may hear and determine any
pretrial matter pending before the court, except those certain listed matters for which a
magistrate judge must issue proposed findings and recommendations which are subject
to review by this Court. The matters of which Plaintiff now complains fall squarely
within the ambit of matters properly determined by a magistrate judge. Thus, the
resultant orders of the magistrate judge will not be reconsidered by this Court absent a
showing that said orders were clearly erroneous or contrary to law. See 28 U.S.C.
§636(b)(1)(A) and Local Rule 74.1(A).
Accordingly, to the extent Plaintiff is requesting that this Court reconsider any
portion of the magistrate judge’s orders denying the two motions to compel [Record
Document 53] or denying the motion for change of venue [Record Document 63], that
request is DENIED on the merits. To the extent Plaintiff is seeking leave to appeal said
orders to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, that request is
similarly DENIED. As Plaintiff is not granted leave to appeal, his request to proceed in forma

pauperis on appeal is also DENIED as moot. The instant motion [Record Document 67] is
therefore DENIED as to every aspect of relief requested therein by Plaintiff.
THUS DONE AND SIGNED in Shreveport, Louisiana this 6th day of January,
2014.

___________________________
Elizabeth Erny Foote
United States District Judge