Opinion
CASE NO. 5:15-CV-00396 BRW/BD
02-09-2016
KEVIN RAY PEARCY, ADC #146408 PLAINTIFF v. RANDY WATSON DEFENDANT
RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION
I. Procedures for Filing Objections:
This Recommended Disposition ("Recommendation") has been sent to Judge Billy Roy Wilson. You may file written objections to this Recommendation. If you file objections, they must be specific and must include the factual or legal basis for your objection. Your objections must be received in the office of the United States District Court Clerk within fourteen (14) days of this Recommendation.
If no objections are filed, Judge Wilson can adopt this Recommendation without independently reviewing the record. By not objecting, you may also waive any right to appeal questions of fact. II. Discussion:
On December 29, 2015, Plaintiff Kevin Ray Pearcy, an Arkansas Department of Correction inmate, filed this action pro se under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Docket entry #2) Mr. Pearcy also moved to proceed in forma pauperis ("IFP"). (#1) Because of his litigation history, Mr. Pearcy is not eligible for IFP status in federal court absent an allegation that he is in imminent danger of serious physical injury. Here, Mr. Pearcy did not plead facts to indicate he is in imminent danger of serious physical injury. Thus, his motion to proceed IFP was denied. (#3)
The following dismissals constitute "strikes" against Mr. Pearcy for purposes of determining eligibility for IFP status: Pearcy v. Kelley, et al., E.D. Ark. Case No. 5:15cv268 (dismissed Sept. 14, 2015); Pearcy v. Kelley, et al., E.D. Ark. Case No. 5:15cv305 (dismissed Dec. 4, 2015); Pearcy v. Kelley, E.D. Ark. Case No. 5:15cv364 (dismissed Dec. 17, 2015). --------
The Court allowed Mr. Pearcy thirty days to pay the $400 filing fee in order to proceed with this lawsuit. (#3) Mr. Pearcy was specifically cautioned that his failure to pay the filing fee could result in dismissal of his claims, without prejudice. To date, Mr. Pearcy has not paid the filing fee, as required in the Court's January 4, 2016 Order, and the time for doing so has passed.
III. Conclusion:
The Court recommends that Mr. Pearcy's claims be DISMISSED, without prejudice, based on his failure to comply with the Court's January 4, 2016 Order requiring him to pay the filing fee.
DATED this 9th day of February, 2016.
/s/_________
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE