Blanton v. Medical et al
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS for 12 Report and Recommendations of the United States Magistrate Judge. Plaintiffs claims are DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to comply with a Court order. Signed by District Judge Jeremy D. Kernodle on 5/9/2022. (gsg)
Case 6:21-cv-00481-JDK-KNM Document 17 Filed 05/09/22 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 40
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
JOHNNY B. BLANTON, #0574106,
MEDICAL DEPARTMENT, et al.,
Case No. 6:21-cv-481-JDK-KNM
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff Johnny B. Blanton, a Texas Department of Criminal Justice inmate
proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The case
was referred to United States Magistrate Judge K. Nicole Mitchell pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 636.
On March 3, 2022, Judge Mitchell issued a Report and Recommendation
recommending that the Court dismiss this case without prejudice for Plaintiff’s
failure to comply with the Court’s order to submit the $185.00 initial, partial filing
Docket No. 12.
Judge Mitchell further recommended that the statute of
limitations in this case be suspended for a period of sixty days from entry of final
judgment. See Campbell v. Wilkinson, 988 F.3d 798, 801 n.1 (5th Cir. 2021).
Plaintiff filed timely objections. Docket No. 14. Judge Mitchell then granted
Plaintiff a second extension of time in which to submit the $185.00 initial, partial
filing fee, ordering Plaintiff to submit the fee by April 13, 2022 and warning him that
Case 6:21-cv-00481-JDK-KNM Document 17 Filed 05/09/22 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 41
failure to comply may result in the dismissal of his lawsuit. Docket No. 15. The
docket reflects that Plaintiff received a copy of this order on March 29, 2022. Docket
No. 16. To date, however, no filing fee has been received—despite two extensions of
time in which to do so.
Where a party timely objects to the Report and Recommendation, the Court
reviews the objected-to findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge de novo. 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). In conducting a de novo review, the Court examines the entire
record and makes an independent assessment under the law. Douglass v. United
Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1430 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc), superseded on other
grounds by statute, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (extending the time to file objections from
ten to fourteen days).
In his objections to Judge Mitchell’s March Report, Plaintiff explained that he
“understood” that his family was paying the initial, partial filing fee and requested
an extension. Plaintiff was then granted an extension in which to submit his fee, but
no filing fee has been received and Plaintiff has not indicated that he is financially
unable to submit the fee.
Having conducted a de novo review of the record in this case and the
Magistrate Judge’s Report, the Court has determined that the Report of the
Magistrate Judge is correct, and Plaintiff’s objections are without merit. Accordingly,
the Court hereby ADOPTS the Report of the Magistrate Judge (Docket No. 12) as
the opinion of the District Court.
Plaintiff’s claims are DISMISSED without
prejudice for failure to comply with a Court order. Finally, the statute of limitations
Case 6:21-cv-00481-JDK-KNM Document 17 Filed 05/09/22 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 42
is hereby SUSPENDED for a period of sixty days from the date of the Final
So ORDERED and SIGNED this 9th day of May, 2022.
JEREMY D. KERNODLE
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?