Leffebre v. Russell et al
Filing
6
MEMORANDUM ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS. Relator's objections are overruled and the Report of the Magistrate Judge 4 is ADOPTED as the opinion of the District Court. Relator's application for leave to proceed in forma pauperi s 2 is hereby DENIED. The above-styled application for the writ of mandamus is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as to the refiling of another IFP application raising the same claims as herein presented, but without prejudice to the refiling of this action without seeking IFP status and upon payment of the statutory $400.00 filing fee. Should the Relator pay the full filing fee within 15 days after the date of entry of final judgment in this case, he shall be allowed to proceed as though the full fee had been paid from the outset. All motions which may be pending in this action are hereby DENIED. Signed by Judge Michael H. Schneider on 03/04/15. (mll, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
TYLER DIVISION
ANDRE LEFFEBRE
§
v.
§
RANDI RUSSELL, ET AL.
§
CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:14cv768
MEMORANDUM ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
AND ENTERING FINAL JUDGMENT
The Relator Andre Leffebre, proceeding pro se, filed this application seeking the issuance
of a writ of mandamus. The underlying action is civil rather than criminal in nature. This Court
ordered that the case be referred to the United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§636(b)(1) and (3) and the Amended Order for the Adoption of Local Rules for the Assignment of
Duties to United States Magistrate Judges.
After review of the pleadings, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report recommending that
Leffebre’s application be dismissed pursuant to the three-strike provision of 28 U.S.C. §1915(g).
Leffebre filed objections to the Report arguing in essence that mandamus petitions do not fall under
§1915(g). This contention is incorrect. In re Crittenden, 143 F.3d 919, 920 (5th Cir. 1998).
The Court has conducted a careful de novo review of those portions of the Magistrate Judge’s
proposed findings and recommendations to which the Relator objected. See 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1)
(district judge shall “make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified
proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.”) Upon such de novo review,
the Court has determined that the Report of the Magistrate Judge is correct and the Relator’s
objections are without merit. It is accordingly
1
ORDERED that the Relator’s objections are overruled and the Report of the Magistrate
Judge (docket no. 4) is ADOPTED as the opinion of the District Court. It is further
ORDERED that the Relator’s application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (docket no.
2) is hereby DENIED. It is further
ORDERED that the above-styled application for the writ of mandamus be and hereby is
DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as to the refiling of another in forma pauperis application
raising the same claims as herein presented, but without prejudice to the refiling of this action
without seeking in forma pauperis status and upon payment of the statutory $400.00 filing fee. It
.
is further
ORDERED that should the Relator pay the full filing fee within 15 days after the date of
entry of final judgment in this case, he shall be allowed to proceed as though the full fee had been
paid from the outset. Finally, it is
ORDERED that any and all motions which may be pending in this action are hereby
DENIED.
It is SO ORDERED.
SIGNED this 4th day of March, 2015.
____________________________________
MICHAEL H. SCHNEIDER
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?