Hammon v. Bear
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 8 of Magistrate Judge Shon Erwin and dismisses this action without prejudice. Signed by Honorable Joe Heaton on 05/22/2017. (lam)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
GLEN DALE HAMMON,
Petitioner Glen Dale Hammon, a state prisoner appearing pro se, filed this action
seeking habeas relief. Consistent with 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1)(B), the matter was referred to
Magistrate Judge Shon T. Erwin for initial proceedings.
The magistrate judge has
recommended that the action be dismissed without prejudice due to petitioner’s failure to
comply with his order directing petitioner by March 20, 2017, to pay the filing fee of $5.00
or obtain leave to proceed without prepayment of fees.1 Dismissal also is warranted, the
magistrate judge concluded, due to petitioner’s failure to submit a notice of change of
address to the clerk of court. The magistrate judge noted that mail addressed to petitioner
is being returned as undeliverable and that under the local rules petitioner is responsible
for notifying the court of any address changes. See LCvR5.4(a).
Petitioner has not made the required payment, requested an extension of time within
which to pay, demonstrated good cause for his failure to pay or sought leave to proceed in
forma pauperis. He also failed to object to the Report and Recommendation and, therefore,
Petitioner was advised that if he failed to cure the deficiency, the action might be
dismissed without prejudice.
waived his right to appellate review of the factual and legal issues it addressed. Casanova
v. Ulibarri, 595 F.3d 1120, 1123 (10th Cir. 2010); see 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).
Accordingly, the court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate
Judge Erwin and dismisses this action without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED
Dated this 22nd day of May, 2017.
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?