From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Bear v. Ross

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION
Aug 4, 2017
CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:16cv4 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 4, 2017)

Opinion

CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:16cv4

08-04-2017

LANCE BEAR v. PEACHES ROSS, ET AL.


MEMORANDUM ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE GRANTING RECONSIDERATION AND REOPENING CASE

The Plaintiff Lance Bear, proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. §1983 complaining of alleged violations of his constitutional rights. This Court referred the case to the United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1) and (3) and the Amended Order for the Adoption of Local Rules for the Assignment of Duties to United States Magistrate Judges.

Court records show that Bear was assessed an initial partial filing fee of $16.17. He paid this fee but the payment was not noted on the docket due to an inadvertent clerical error. As a result, the lawsuit was dismissed in error for failure to prosecute.

Bear filed a motion asking that the lawsuit be reopened. The Magistrate Judge issued a Report recommending that the motion be granted. No objections were filed to the Report; accordingly, the parties are barred from de novo review by the District Judge of those findings, conclusions, and recommendations and, except upon grounds of plain error, from appellate review of the unobjected-to factual findings and legal conclusions accepted and adopted by the district court. Douglass v. United Services Automobile Association, 79 F.3d 1415, 1430 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc).

The Court has reviewed the record in this cause and the Report of the Magistrate Judge. Upon such review, the Court has determined that the Report of the Magistrate Judge is correct. See United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 492 U.S. 918, 109 S.Ct. 3243 (1989) (where no objections to a Magistrate Judge's Report are filed, the standard of review is "clearly erroneous, abuse of discretion and contrary to law.") It is accordingly

ORDERED that the Report of the Magistrate Judge (docket no. 15) is ADOPTED as the opinion of the District Court. It is further

ORDERED that the Plaintiff's motion to reopen this lawsuit (docket no. 12) is GRANTED. It is further

ORDERED that the final judgment in this lawsuit (docket no. 11) is set aside. The lawsuit is reopened for all purposes and placed upon the active docket of the Court.

So Ordered and Signed

Aug 4, 2017

/s/_________

Ron Clark, United States District Judge


Summaries of

Bear v. Ross

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION
Aug 4, 2017
CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:16cv4 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 4, 2017)
Case details for

Bear v. Ross

Case Details

Full title:LANCE BEAR v. PEACHES ROSS, ET AL.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION

Date published: Aug 4, 2017

Citations

CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:16cv4 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 4, 2017)