Laurent v. Woods et al

Filing 25

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, ).

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS BEAUMONT DIVISION EUGENE A. LAURENT § VS. § 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. P. 72(b). 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 1 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. ORDER 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 2

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?