From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Grohoske v. Hines

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION
Apr 20, 2016
CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:14cv762 (E.D. Tex. Apr. 20, 2016)

Opinion

CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:14cv762

04-20-2016

DAVID LESTER GROHOSKE #1838849 v. SGT. HINES, ET AL.


MEMORANDUM ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE AND ENTERING FINAL JUDGMENT

The Plaintiff David Grohoske, proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. §1983 complaining of alleged violations of his constitutional rights. This Court ordered that the case be referred 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.

After reviewing the pleadings, the magistrate judge determined that Grohoske had failed to prosecute his case in that he did not pay the initial partial filing fee of $13.65 or show good cause for his failure to do so. The magistrate judge also concluded that Grohoske's claim was factually frivolous and issued a report recommending that the lawsuit be dismissed on this basis. Grohoske received a copy of the magistrate judge's report on March 10, 2016, but filed no objections thereto; accordingly, he is 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 proposed 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. 43) is ADOPTED as the opinion of the District Court. It is further

ORDERED that the above-styled civil action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE for purposes of proceeding in forma pauperis as frivolous and for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 28 U.S.C. §1915A. It is further

ORDERED that the Clerk shall send a copy of this order to the Administrator of the Three Strikes List for the Eastern District of Texas. Finally, it is

ORDERED that any and all motions which may be pending in this action are hereby DENIED. SIGNED this 20th day of April, 2016.

/s/_________

MICHAEL H. SCHNEIDER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE


Summaries of

Grohoske v. Hines

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION
Apr 20, 2016
CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:14cv762 (E.D. Tex. Apr. 20, 2016)
Case details for

Grohoske v. Hines

Case Details

Full title:DAVID LESTER GROHOSKE #1838849 v. SGT. HINES, ET AL.

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

Date published: Apr 20, 2016

Citations

CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:14cv762 (E.D. Tex. Apr. 20, 2016)