Favors #159735 v. Woods et al

Filing 49

ORDER APPROVING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 46 ; granting 21 defendants' motion to revoke plaintiff's informa pauperis status; denying as moot 25 defendants' motion to stay the case management order and discovery pending the court's ruling on the motion to revoke ; signed by Judge Robert Holmes Bell (Judge Robert Holmes Bell, kcb)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
NORTHERN DIVISION

GENE FAVORS,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 2:16-cv-33
HON. ROBERT HOLMES BELL

DAVID LEACH, et al.,
Defendants.
____________________________________/
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
This is a civil rights action brought by a state prisoner under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Defendants filed a motion to revoke Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis status under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(g). (ECF No. 21.) Defendants have also filed a motion to stay the case management
order pending discovery until the motion to revoke has been decided. (ECF No. 25.) On
December 6, 2016, Magistrate Judge Timothy Greeley issued a Report and Recommendation
(“R&R”) recommending that the Court grant Defendants’ motion to revoke in forma paueris
status. (ECF No. 46.) Plaintiff timely filed an objection to the R&R, but stated that “due to
the short time” to file an objection, he was not able to prepare an adequate objection and
requested that the Court consider his previously-filed affidavit and exhibits. (ECF No. 47.)
Plaintiff does not object to any of the R&R’s conclusions. Rather, he relies upon his
response to Defendants’ motion. (ECF No. 40.)

This Court is required to make a de novo review upon the record of those portions of
the R&R to which specific objections have been made, and may accept, reject, or modify any
or all of the magistrate judge’s findings or recommendations. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed.
R. Civ. P. 72(b); see also Miller v. Currie, 50 F.3d 373, 380 (6th Cir. 1995) (“[A] general
objection to a magistrate’s report, which fails to specify the issues of contention, does not
satisfy the requirement that an objection be filed. The objections must be clear enough to
enable the district court to discern those issues that are dispositive and contentious.”).
Plaintiff has not made any specific objections, and has not satisfied the requirements of
§ 636(b)(1) or Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b). Although Plaintiff stated that he was
unable to prepare an adequate objection in 14 days, Plaintiff did not request additional time
to file an objection.
The Court finds the R&R to be well-reasoned; it accurately recites the facts and
correctly applies pertinent law. The Court agrees with and adopts the Magistrate Judge’s
analysis. Plaintiff has filed more than three lawsuits that fall within the meaning of 28
U.S.C. § 1915(g), and Plaintiff’s complaint does not satisfy the imminent-danger exception.
Thus, Plaintiff may not proceed in forma pauperis in this action. As such, Plaintiff has 28
days to pay the civil action filing fee of $400. If Plaintiff fails to pay the filing fee, the case
will be dismissed without prejudice, and he will remain responsible for payment of the $400
filing fee. See In re Alea, 286 F.3d 378, 380-81 (6th Cir. 2002).
Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the R&R (ECF No. 46) is APPROVED and
ADOPTED as the opinion of the Court.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ motion to revoke Plaintiff’s in forma
pauperis status (ECF No. 21) is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis status is revoked.
He shall have 28 days to pay the $400 filing fee.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ motion to stay the case management
order and discovery pending the Court’s ruling on the motion to revoke (ECF No. 25) is
DENIED AS MOOT.

Dated: January 3, 2017

/s/ Robert Holmes Bell
ROBERT HOLMES BELL
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE