Flores v. Moore et al
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re: 3 Report and Recommendations, Case terminated on 3/21/2017.(Signed by Judge Micaela Alvarez) Parties notified.(bgarces, 7)
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
ERIC FLORES (TDCJ#2051801),
SENIOR WARDEN R. MOORE, et al,
March 21, 2017
David J. Bradley, Clerk
§ MISC. ACTION NO. 7:16-MC-01986
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Pending before the Court is Petitioner’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis
(AIFP@), which had been referred to the Magistrate Court for a report and recommendation. On
February 27, 2017, the Magistrate Court issued the Report and Recommendation, recommending
that Petitioner=s IFP application be denied and the complaint be dismissed without prejudice.
Also pending before the Court are Plaintiff’s objections to the Report and Recommendation.
Petitioner’s objections center on his claim that the Magistrate Court erred in finding that
he is barred from proceeding IFP because he has accumulated three strikes under the Prisoner
Litigation Reform Act. In this regard, Petitioner asserts that the prior case upon which the
Magistrate Court relied was wholly fabricated by prison officials. Petitioner offers no evidence
to support this claim and this Court finds the objection has no merit.
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b), the Court has conducted a de novo
review of the Report and Recommendation. Finding no clearly erroneous error, the Court adopts
the Report and Recommendation in its entirety. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that
Petitioner=s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (AIFP) (Dkt. Entry No. 2) is DENIED and
the complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DONE at McAllen, Texas, this 21st day of March, 2017.
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?