From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Brooks v. Lively

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION
Jun 29, 2020
Case No. 6:19-CV-577-JDK-KNM (E.D. Tex. Jun. 29, 2020)

Opinion

Case No. 6:19-CV-577-JDK-KNM

06-29-2020

CHARLES DAVID BROOKS, #1043239, Plaintiff, v. ORAN K. LIVELY, et al., Defendants.


ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

This action was referred to United States Magistrate Judge John D. Love pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636. Docket No. 3. The Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Docket No. 18) recommended that the action be dismissed with prejudice for purposes of in forma pauperis proceedings pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). The Magistrate Judge further recommended that Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Docket No. 6) be denied. Plaintiff timely filed objections. Docket No. 21.

The Court reviews objected-to portions of the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation de novo. See FED. R. CIV. P. 72 and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) ("A judge of the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings and recommendations to which objection is made."). The Court conducting a de novo review examines the entire record and makes an independent assessment under the law. Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass'n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1430 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc), superseded on other grounds by statute, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (extending the time to file objections from ten to fourteen days).

Having reviewed Plaintiff's objections de novo, the Court concludes that the objections are without merit and that the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge are correct. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Plaintiff's objections are OVERRULED and that the Magistrate Judge's Report (Docket No. 18) is ADOPTED as the opinion of this Court. It is further

ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Docket No. 6) is DENIED. It is further

ORDERED that the complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE for purposes of proceeding in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g)—but without prejudice as to the refiling of his lawsuit without seeking in forma pauperis status. Plaintiff may resume his lawsuit if he pays the entire filing fee of $400 within thirty days after the entry of the final judgment. It is finally ORDERED that all motions not previously ruled on are DENIED.

So ORDERED and SIGNED this 29th day of June, 2020.

/s/_________

JEREMY D. KERNODLE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE


Summaries of

Brooks v. Lively

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION
Jun 29, 2020
Case No. 6:19-CV-577-JDK-KNM (E.D. Tex. Jun. 29, 2020)
Case details for

Brooks v. Lively

Case Details

Full title:CHARLES DAVID BROOKS, #1043239, Plaintiff, v. ORAN K. LIVELY, et al.…

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

Date published: Jun 29, 2020

Citations

Case No. 6:19-CV-577-JDK-KNM (E.D. Tex. Jun. 29, 2020)