Pierce v. Roberts et al

Filing 6

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION re 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by Christopher Pierce. With the petition, he filed an inmate accounty statement. The Court construes the affidavit as a request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Becaus e Mr. Pierce has adequate funds for the filing fee, the undersigned recommends that the Court deny the application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and order payment of the filing fee within twenty days. Parties advised of their right to object to the R&R. Objections to R&R due by 5/1/2006. This R&R does not dispose of all issues referred to the undersigned in the present action.. Signed by Judge Robert Bacharach on 04/10/06. (bf, )

Pierce v. Roberts et al

Doc. 6

Case 5:06-cv-00375-R

Document 6

Filed 04/10/2006

Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA CHRISTOPHER PIERCE, Petitioner, v. RAY ROBERTS, et al., Respondents. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Case No. CIV-06-375-R

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Mr. Christopher Pierce has filed a petition for habeas relief. With the petition, he filed an inmate account statement. The Court construes the affidavit as a request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. The affidavit indicates that Mr. Pierce has $41.16 in his institutional account as of March 10, 2006, and the filing fee is only $5.00.1 Because Mr. Pierce has adequate funds for the filing fee, the undersigned recommends that the Court: (1) deny the application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and (2) order payment of the filing fee within twenty days.2 The Petitioner is advised of his right to object to this report and recommendation by May 1, 2006. See W.D. Okla. Local Civil Rule 72.1(a). If the Petitioner does object, he must file a written objection with the Court Clerk for the United States District Court, Western District of Oklahoma. The Petitioner is further advised that if he does not timely

1

See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) (2000). See W.D. Okla. LCvR 3.3(e).

2

Dockets.Justia.com

Case 5:06-cv-00375-R

Document 6

Filed 04/10/2006

Page 2 of 2

object, he would waive his right to appellate review over a denial of pauper status in the district court. See Moore v. United States, 950 F.2d 656, 659 (10th Cir. 1991). This report and recommendation does not dispose of all issues referred to the undersigned in the present action. Entered this 10th day of April, 2006.

-2-