Opinion
Civil Action 23-0084
05-08-2023
LAWRENCE RAY PITTMAN, SR. v. MICHELLE NORRIS, ET AL.
MCCLUSKY, MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
MEMORANDUM ORDER
S. MAURICE HICKS, JR., DISTRICT JUDGE.
Before the Court is a Magistrate Appeal (Record Document 6) filed by pro se Plaintiff Lawrence Ray Pittman, Sr. (“Plaintiff”). Plaintiff objects to and appeals the Magistrate Judge's Memorandum Order (Record Document 5) dated March 13, 2023, revoking the Order granting Plaintiff in forma pauperis status (Record Document 3) and ordering Plaintiff to pay the full filing fee. For the reasons set forth below, the Magistrate Appeal (Record Document 6) is DENIED and Magistrate Judge McClusky's Memorandum Order (Record Document 5) of March 13, 2023 is AFFIRMED.
The decision by Judge McClusky revoking Plaintiff's in forma pauperis status and ordering him to pay the full filing fee is a non-dispositive matter. This action is not listed in 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) as one of the dispositive motions that a magistrate judge may not conclusively decide. An order on a non-dispositive matter from the magistrate judge must be upheld unless it is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) & Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(a); see also Castillo v. Frank, 70 F.3d 382, 385 (5th Cir. 1995). The Court will review the Magistrate Judge's legal conclusions de novo and will review her factual findings for clear error. See Bedingfield v. Deen, No. 09-369, 2011 WL 1044397, at *1 (W.D. La. Mar. 18, 2011).
Plaintiff filed a written memorandum outlining the basis for his appeal. The memorandum seems to object to Magistrate Judge McClusky's finding that Plaintiff was not in “imminent danger of serious physical injury” when he filed this proceeding or when he applied to proceed in forma pauperis. See Record Document 6 at 2 and Record Document 5 at 3. Plaintiff's argument in his written appeal largely centers around the “persistent and pernicious effects” he has endured due to “long covid.” See generally Record Document 6.
The Court conducted a thorough review of the Memorandum Order issued on March 13, 2023. Upon review, the Court finds the Memorandum Order was neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law. Magistrate Judge McClusky explained that Plaintiff cannot proceed in forma pauperis because he has, in at least three separate proceedings, filed complaints that have been dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or have failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Further, the Court agrees with Magistrate Judge McClusky's finding that Plaintiff was not in imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed this proceeding, nor was he in imminent danger of serious physical injury when he applied to proceed in forma pauperis. Thus, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), Plaintiff cannot proceed in forma pauperis. Plaintiff must pay the full filing fee of $402.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the Memorandum Order (Record Document 5) is AFFIRMED and Plaintiff's appeal (Record Document 6) is DENIED.
THUS DONE AND SIGNED.