Toohey v. The United States

Filing 13

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS that the Court Dismiss Plaintiff's 6 Case Transferred In filed by Heather Marie Toohey. Signed by Judge Andrew W. Austin. (klw, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AUSTIN DIVISION
HEATHER MARIE TOOHEY

§
§
§
§
§

v.
UNITED STATES of AMERICA

A-12-CV-683 LY

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
TO:

THE HONORABLE LEE YEAKEL
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Before the Court is the above-styled case.

The Court submits this Report and

Recommendation to the United States District Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636(b) and Rule 1 of
Appendix C of the Local Court Rules of the United States District Court for the Western District of
Texas, Local Rules for the Assignment of Duties to United States Magistrate Judges.
I. ANALYSIS
On July 31, 2012, this Court denied Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis after
finding that Plaintiff had sufficient resources to pay the requisite $350.00 filing fee in this case. See
July 31, 2012 Order (Clerk’s Docket No. 9). In that Order, Court also ordered Plaintiff “to submit
to the Clerk of the Court the $350.00 filing fee in this cause on or before August 13, 2012,” and
warned Plaintiff that failure to pay the filing fee on or before that date would result in the Court
recommending that her case be dismissed without prejudice. Plaintiff has not paid the filing fee.
II. RECOMMENDATION
The Magistrate Judge RECOMMENDS that the District Court DISMISS Plaintiff’s case
without prejudice.

III. WARNINGS
The parties may file objections to this Report and Recommendation. A party filing
objections must specifically identify those findings or recommendations to which objections are
being made. The District Court need not consider frivolous, conclusive, or general objections. See
Battle v. United States Parole Comm’n, 834 F.2d 419, 421 (5th Cir. 1987).
A party’s failure to file written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations
contained in this Report within fourteen days after the party is served with a copy of the Report shall
bar that party from de novo review by the District Court of the proposed findings and
recommendations in the Report and, except upon grounds of plain error, shall bar the party from
appellate review of unobjected-to proposed factual findings and legal conclusions accepted by the
District Court. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150-53, 106 S. Ct. 466,
472-74 (1985); Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1428-29 (5th Cir. 1996) (en
banc).
To the extent that a party has not been served by the Clerk with this Report &
Recommendation electronically pursuant to the CM/ECF procedures of this District, the Clerk is
directed to mail such party a copy of this Report and Recommendation by certified mail, return
receipt requested.
SIGNED this 6th day of September, 2012.

_____________________________________
ANDREW W. AUSTIN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2