Kohute v. Greyhound Corporate Office et al

Filing 7

ORDER adopting 4 Report and Recommendation. The clerk shall not accept any new lawsuits from Kevin Kohute unless such lawsuit is filed by an attorney licensed to practice in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas and the full filing fee is paid at the outset of the case. (Motion(s) 4 terminated). Signed by District Judge J. Campbell Barker on 3/6/2025. (wea)

No. 6:24-cv-00476
Kevin James Kohute,
Plaintiff,
v.
Greyhound Corporate Office,
Defendant.
ORDER
Plaintiff Kevin James Kohute, proceeding pro se, filed this action alleging violations of his constitutional rights under 42
U.S.C. § 1983. Doc. 1. The case was referred to United States
Magistrate Judge K. Nicole Mitchell pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b).
On January 13, 2025, the magistrate judge issued a report recommending that the complaint be dismissed with prejudice for
failure to state a claim and that plaintiff be warned against the continued practice of filing frivolous lawsuits. Doc. 4. Plaintiff received the report on January 16, 2025. Doc. 5. He has not filed
written objections.
When a party fails to object to a magistrate judge’s report, the
court reviews the record only for clear error. See Douglass v.
United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1420 (5th Cir. 1996). Having reviewed the magistrate judge’s report, and being satisfied
that it contains no clear error, the court accepts its findings and
recommendation. Plaintiff’s action is dismissed with prejudice
for failure to state a claim. Any pending motions are denied as
moot.
Consistent with the court’s sanction previously imposed, see
Kohute v. Nat’l Rifle Ass’n, No. 6:24-cv-00475, Doc. 6 (E.D. Tex.
Jan. 29, 2025), the clerk shall not accept any new lawsuits from
Kevin Kohute unless such lawsuit is filed by an attorney licensed

-1-

to practice in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Texas and the full filing fee is paid at the outset of the case.
Kohute is further cautioned that, should he continue to file
frivolous documents in violation of his sanctions, the court will
impose additional sanctions against him, including potential monetary sanctions. See Jackson v. Carpenter, 921 F.2d 68, 69 (5th Cir.
1991) (cautioning a pro se litigant that the continued abuse of the
legal system “will trigger increasingly severe sanctions, including
the ultimate denial of access to the judicial system absent specific
prior court approval”).
So ordered by the court on March 6, 2025.

J. C AM PB EL L B A RK ER
United States District Judge

-2-