Taylor v. McCollum et al

Filing 7

ORDER adopting Report and Recommendations re 5 Report and Recommendation.; denying 2 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis. Signed by Honorable Timothy D. DeGiusti on 3/11/15. (cla)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
JACK JOSEPH TAYLOR,
Petitioner,
v.
TRACY McCOLLUM,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. CIV-15-162-D

ORDER
Petitioner, a state prisoner appearing pro se, filed this action seeking habeas corpus relief
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. This matter is before the Court for review of the Report and
Recommendation [Doc. No. 5] issued on February 3, 2015 by United States Magistrate Judge
Charles B. Goodwin pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and (C).
In the Report and Recommendation, the Magistrate Judge recommended that Petitioner’s
Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis [Doc. No. 2] be denied. Additionally, the
Magistrate Judge recommended that the action be dismissed without prejudice to refiling unless
Petitioner timely paid the requisite $5.00 filing fee. The Magistrate Judge specifically advised
Petitioner of his right to object to the findings and recommendations set forth therein. He further
advised Petitioner that his failure to timely object would constitute a waiver of his right to appellate
review of the factual and legal matters in the Report and Recommendation. Petitioner’s deadline
for filing objections was March 6, 2015.
To date, Petitioner has not filed an objection to the Report and Recommendation or sought
an extension of time in which to do so. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the Report and
Recommendation [Doc. No. 5] in its entirety and Petitioner’s Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma
Pauperis [Doc. No. 2] is DENIED.

The Court docket further reflects that on February 23, 2015, Petitioner paid the $5.00 filing
fee. See Receipt [Doc. No. 6]. Because Petitioner has complied with the Court’s directive to pay
the $5.00 filing fee, the matter shall proceed before Magistrate Judge Goodwin pursuant to the
Court’s previous referral order [Doc. No. 4].
IT IS SO ORDERED this 11th day of March, 2015.

2