Laurent v. Woods et al
ORDER overruling objections and partially adopting 11 Report and Recommendation to the extent that it recommends dismissal. Signed by Judge Ron Clark on 9/22/17. (tkd, ) Modified on 9/22/2017 (tkd, ).
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
EUGENE A. LAURENT
MITCH WOODS, et al.,
CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:16-CV-452
ORDER ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE
JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff, Eugene A. Laurent, a former pretrial detainee at the Jefferson County Correctional
Facility, proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
The court referred this matter to the Honorable Zack Hawthorn, United States Magistrate
Judge, at Beaumont, Texas, for consideration pursuant to applicable laws and orders of this court.
The Magistrate Judge recommends plaintiff’s civil rights action be dismissed for want of prosecution
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).
The Court has received and considered the Report and Recommendation of United States
Magistrate Judge filed pursuant to such order, along with the record, and pleadings. Plaintiff filed
objections to the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge.1 This requires a
de novo review of the objections in relation to the pleadings and applicable law. See FED. R. CIV.
After careful consideration, the court finds plaintiff’s objections lacking in merit. Plaintiff
filed a Notice of Compliance/Prisoner Trust Fund Account Statement on November 28, 2016 (docket
entry no. 4) along with an affidavit in support of a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis
(docket entry no. 5). In the Notice of Compliance, plaintiff attached a certified copy of his income
trust statement, demonstrating plaintiff had a six month average deposit of $40.84 and a six month
average balance of $15.95. As a result, the Magistrate Judge entered an order assessing an initial
The court construes plaintiff’s Motion for a Reduction of Fees, Notice of Compliance, and Motion for Leave
to Proceed in forma pauperis (docket entry nos. 22-24), collectively, as Objections to the Report and Recommendation.
partial filing fee of $8.16 on January 3, 2017 (docket entry no. 6). Despite ample time to do so,
plaintiff has still yet to pay the initial partial filing fee. Although plaintiff filed a Motion for a
Reduction of Fees, Notice of Compliance and Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis
(docket entry nos. 22-24), none of these motions are on the proper inmate application to proceed in
forma pauperis and none contain a current certified income trust statement demonstrating plaintiff
cannot now pay the initial partial filing fee as previously ordered. Plaintiff has had more than
enough time to pay the fee and/or provide supporting documentation that he cannot pay the initial
partial filing fee. Plaintiff’s objections, therefore, are overruled.
Accordingly, the objections of plaintiff are OVERRULED. The findings of fact and
conclusions of law of the Magistrate Judge are correct, and the report of the Magistrate Judge is
PARTIALLY ADOPTED to the extent it recommends dismissal. A final judgment will be entered
in this case in accordance with the Magistrate Judge’s recommendations.
So ORDERED and SIGNED this 22 day of September, 2017.
Ron Clark, United States District Judge
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?