Opinion
1:22-cv-192
05-13-2024
GREGORY ROBINSON, JR., Plaintiff, v. MR. HONBARRIER, And MR. SHULER, Defendant.
ORDER
This matter is before the court for review of the Order and Recommendation (“Recommendation”) filed on March 7, 2024, by the United States Magistrate Judge in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). (Doc. 21.) The Recommendation was served on the parties on March 7, 2024. (Doc. 22.) In the Recommendation, the Magistrate Judge recommends that Plaintiff's motion for joinder and reimbursement of funds be denied. Specifically, that Plaintiff's request to consolidate cases 1:22-cv-28 and 1:22-cv-198 and for reimbursement of his filing fee in 1:22-cv-192 be denied. Plaintiff filed a document entitled, “Objection/Appeal to Order and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge,” which the Court construes as an objection to the Recommendation. (See Doc. 24.)
This court is required to “make a de novo determination of those portions of the [Magistrate Judge's] report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). This court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the [M]agistrate [J]udge . . . [O]r recommit the matter to the [M]agistrate [J]udge with instructions.”
The Court has appropriately reviewed the portions of the Recommendation to which objection was made and has made a de novo determination which is in accord with the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation. Therefore, this Court adopts the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge's Order and Recommendation, (Doc. 21), is ADOPTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Joinder and Reimbursement of Funds, (Doc. 16), is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that in light of adopting the Magistrate Judge's Order and Recommendation, Plaintiff's Motion to Rule Upon Motion for Joinder and Reimbursement of Funds, (Doc. 20), is DENIED AS MOOT.