Opinion
3:23-CV-03-DCLC-JEM
03-15-2023
ROBERT J. ATKINS, Plaintiff, v. STEVEN SWORD, et al., Defendants.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Jill E. McCook United States Magistrate Judge
This case is before the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Rules of this Court, and Standing Order 13-02. Now before the Court is Plaintiff's Application to Proceed in District Court without Prepaying Fees or Costs (the “Application”) [Doc. 4].
Plaintiff's Application includes a non-certified copy of his trust fund account for the past six months [Id. at 4-5]. Along with his Application, Plaintiff filed a Motion and Petition for a Continuation, in which he stated that he had been unable to obtain a certified copy of his inmate trust account due to the Christmas holiday [Doc. 5]. On January 5, 2023, the Court entered an Order requiring Plaintiff to either pay the $350.00 filing fee or submit the necessary documentation-including his inmate trust account for the previous six-month period-within thirty days of the Order [Doc. 6]. On February 1, 2023, Plaintiff filed a Petition for Extension, in which he asked for an extension to file a notarized copy of his inmate trust account from the past six months. Plaintiff stated that he has paid for his papers to be notarized, but that he had not yet received them back. Plaintiff further related that, on January 25, 2023, he was transferred from Hardeman County-where he requested the papers-to Knox County Detention Facility, and that he had sent a letter to Hardeman County asking for a copy of his inmate trust account.
Based upon the representations made by Plaintiff in his Motion and Petition for a Continuance [Doc. 5] and Petition for Extension [Doc. 8], the fact that Plaintiff kept the Court apprised of his attempts to obtain a certified copy of his trust fund account, and the fact that Plaintiff included a non-certified copy of his account with his Application, the Court found good cause to grant the requested extension. The Court allowed Plaintiff thirty (30) days from the date of the entry of the Order (February 6, 2023) to submit a certified copy of his inmate trust account for the previous six-month period or pay the $350.00 filing fee.
It has been more than thirty (30) days since the Court ordered Plaintiff to submit a certified copy of his inmate trust account for the previous six-month period or pay the $350.00 filing fee and Plaintiff has done neither action. Accordingly, the Court RECOMMENDS that the District Judge DENY Plaintiff's Application [Doc. 4].The Court further RECOMMENDS that Plaintiff be afforded twenty-one (21) days to pay the filing fee and advised that the failure to do so will result in a dismissal of his case without prejudice. See Young v. Cameron, No. 3:20-CV-680-DJH, 2020 WL 13093863, at *2 (W.D. Ky. Oct. 13, 2020) (directing the plaintiff to pay the filing fee or file a fully completed in forma pauperis form and warning that failure to do so would result in dismissal of the action without prejudice); Washington v. Berryhill, No. 18-2385-SHM-TMP, 2018 WL 11260461, at *1 (W.D. Tenn. June 5, 2018) (“If the plaintiff fails to file a properly completed in forma pauperis application or pay the filing fee within thirty days, his complaint may be dismissed without prejudice.”).
Any objections to this Report and Recommendation must be served and filed within fourteen (14) days after service of a copy of this recommended disposition on the objecting party. Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(2). Such objections must conform to the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b). Failure to file objections within the time specified waives the right to appeal the District Court's order. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 153-54 (1985). “[T]he district court need not provide de novo review where objections [to the Report and Recommendation] are ‘[f]rivolous, conclusive or general.'” Mira v. Marshall, 806 F.2d 636, 637 (6th Cir. 1986) (quoting Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404, 410 n.8 (5th Cir. 1982)). Only specific objections are reserved for appellate review. Smith v. Detroit Fed. of Teachers, 829 F.2d 1370, 1373 (6th Cir. 1987).