Opinion
3:21cv2574-TKW-HTC
01-13-2022
JAMMIE D. GORDON, II, Plaintiff, v. LIEUTENANT CARTER, et al., Defendants.
ORDER
T. KENT WETHERELL, II UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
This case is before the Court based on the magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation (Doc. 4). No. objections were filed. Upon due consideration of the Report and Recommendation and the case file, the Court agrees with the magistrate judge's determination that this case should be dismissed based on Plaintiff's failure to fully disclose his litigation history. Accordingly, it is
The magistrate judge alternatively recommended that the case be dismissed based on Plaintiff's failure to prosecute and failure to comply with court orders regarding payment of the filing fee. The Court does not base dismissal on those grounds because the docket shows that Plaintiff belatedly paid the filing fee. See Doc. 7. However, that does not change the fact that Plaintiff failed to fully disclose his litigation history. See Doc. 6, at 2 (denying Plaintiff's motion for extension of time to file a motion to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the filing fee as “moot and futile because even if the Court allowed Plaintiff to file a tardy motion to proceed in forma pauperis, doing so would not cure Plaintiff's lack of candor with the Court”)
ORDERED that:
1. The magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation is adopted and incorporated by reference in this order.
2. This case is DISMISSED without prejudice based on Plaintiff's failure to prosecute, failure to comply with court orders, and failure to fully disclose his litigation history.
3. The Clerk shall close the case file.
DONE and ORDERED.