Pickett v. Cain et al
ORDER that Judge Hawthorn's "Report and Recommendation" 6 is ADOPTED, and the Plaintiff's "Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis" 2 is DENIED. It is further ORDERED that the Plaintiff must pay the $400 filing fee within fifteen (15) days of the receipt of this order or the case will be dismissed. Signed by Judge Ron Clark on 9/20/17. (ljw, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
JODY WAYNE PICKETT
CHRISTOPHER B. CAIN, et al.
CIVIL ACTION NO. 9:17-cv-65
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
This case is assigned to the Honorable Zack Hawthorn, United States Magistrate Judge,
for pre-trial management. On July 20, 2017, Judge Hawthorn entered a report (“Report,” Doc.
No. 6) recommending the court deny pro se Plaintiff Jody Wayne Pickett’s “Motion to Proceed
In Forma Pauperis.” (Doc. No. 2). The Plaintiff did not object to the Report within fourteen
days of receipt. On August 18, 2017, Plaintiff filed his “Motion for Extension of Time to
Answer or Respond.” (Doc. No. 8). Judge Hawthorn interpreted this motion as a request to
allow Plaintiff to file an objection to the Report outside of the fourteen day time period allowed
by the Report. (Doc. No. 9, at 1). Judge Hawthorn granted the Plaintiff’s motion for an
extension, and Plaintiff was allowed an extension to object to the Report until September 1,
2017. (Id. at 1). The court has not received an objection to the Report from the Plaintiff, and
the time for doing so has passed.
It is, therefore, ORDERED that Judge Hawthorn’s “Report and Recommendation”
(Doc. No. 6) is ADOPTED, and the Plaintiff’s “Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis” (Doc.
No. 2) is DENIED. It is further ORDERED that the Plaintiff must pay the $400 filing fee
within fifteen (15) days of the receipt of this order or the case will be dismissed.
So Ordered and Signed
Sep 20, 2017
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?