Moneyham v. Practer

Filing 11

ORDER ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION FOR SUA SPONTE DISMISSAL. Signed by Chief Judge S. Thomas Anderson on 5/31/17. (Anderson, S.)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
WESTERN DIVISION
______________________________________________________________________________
DESIREE MONEYHAM,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
2:17-cv-02068-STA-tmp
)
ANTHONY PRACTER,
)
)
Defendant.
)
______________________________________________________________________________
ORDER ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION FOR SUA SPONTE DISMISSAL
______________________________________________________________________________
On February 1, 2017, Plaintiff instituted this pro se action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
(ECF No. 1.) She also filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, which the United
States Magistrate Judge granted. (ECF No. 7.) On March 9, 2017, the Magistrate Judge directed
Plaintiff to file an amended complaint. (ECF No. 8.) To date, Plaintiff has not done so. On
May 2, 2017, the United States Magistrate Judge filed a report and recommendation
recommending that the Court dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint sua sponte for failure to state a claim
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).

(ECF No. 10.)

No objection has been filed.

Accordingly, the report and recommendation for sua sponte dismissal of this matter is
ADOPTED, and the case is hereby DISMISSED.
The Court must also consider whether Plaintiff may appeal this decision in forma
pauperis.

A non-prisoner may seek pauper status on appeal pursuant to Federal Rule of

Appellate Procedure 24(a). See Callihan v. Schneider, 178 F.3d 800, 803–04 (6th Cir. 1999). If
the district court “certifies that the appeal is not taken in good faith or finds that the party is not

otherwise entitled to proceed in forma pauperis,” the plaintiff must file a motion to proceed in
forma pauperis in the Court of Appeals, regardless of whether pauper status was granted in the
district court action. Fed. R. App. P. 24(a). In evaluating whether an appeal is taken in “good
faith,” the Court considers whether the litigant seeks appellate review of any non-frivolous issue.
Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 445 (1962).
The same reasons that lead the Court to dismiss this case for failure to state a claim also
warrant the conclusion that an appeal would not be taken in good faith. The Court hereby
CERTIFIES that any appeal in this matter by Plaintiff is not taken in good faith. Leave to
proceed on appeal in forma pauperis is DENIED. If Plaintiff files a notice of appeal, she must
pay the full $505.00 appellate filing fee or file a motion to proceed in forma pauperis and
supporting affidavit in the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals within thirty (30) days.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 31st day of May, 2017.
s/ S. Thomas Anderson
S. THOMAS ANDERSON
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2