From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Mackall v. Coleman

United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
Jan 31, 2006
Civil Case No. 05-40115 (E.D. Mich. Jan. 31, 2006)

Opinion

Civil Case No. 05-40115.

January 31, 2006


ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION


This matter has come to the Court's attention through the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Donald A. Scheer. The Magistrate Judge has reviewed Plaintiff's prisoner civil rights complaint, brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and is persuaded that Plaintiff has not met the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) so as to avoid the statute's "three strikes" provision. Therefore, he recommends that Plaintiff's complaint be dismissed, Plaintiff's in forma pauperis status be revoked, and that Plaintiff not be permitted to proceed in this Court under in forma pauperis status again, according to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b). The Magistrate Judge served the Report and Recommendation on all parties on November 29, 2005 and notified the parties that any objections must be filed within ten days of service. Accordingly, any objections should have been filed by December 16, 2005. Neither party filed objections to the Report and Recommendation.

The Court's standard of review for a Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation depends upon whether a party files objections. If a party does not object to the Report and Recommendation, the Court does not need to conduct a review by any standard. See Lardie v. Birkett, 221 F. Supp. 2d 806, 807 (E.D. Mich. 2002) (Gadola, J.). As the Supreme Court observed, "[i]t does not appear that Congress intended to require district court review of a magistrate's factual or legal conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard, when neither party objects to those findings." Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985). Since neither party has filed objections to the Report and Recommendation, the Court need not conduct a review.

ACCORDINGLY, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation [docket entry 13] is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED as the opinion of this Court.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action, no. 05-40115, is DISMISSED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's in forma pauperis status is revoked and Plaintiff is not allowed to proceed in this Court under such status according to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b).

If Plaintiff wishes to pursue the allegations contained in his complaint, Plaintiff may pay the $225.00 filing fee, less the initial partial payment and any other amounts paid to the Court for this case, within 30 days. Upon receipt of the full filing fee, the Court will reopen the case for the appropriate review.

SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Mackall v. Coleman

United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
Jan 31, 2006
Civil Case No. 05-40115 (E.D. Mich. Jan. 31, 2006)
Case details for

Mackall v. Coleman

Case Details

Full title:PERRY O. MACKALL, Plaintiff, v. RICKY COLEMAN, et al., Defendants

Court:United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division

Date published: Jan 31, 2006

Citations

Civil Case No. 05-40115 (E.D. Mich. Jan. 31, 2006)