Opinion
NO. 4:12-CV-267-A
07-16-2012
ORDER
Petitioner, Rudy Stanko, filed the instant petition for declaratory relief on April 30, 2 012, naming as respondent United States of America. The court dismissed the petition on May 23, 2012, pursuant to the authority of 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(l). The court referred petitioner's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal to the United States Magistrate Judge, who issued his findings and conclusions, and a recommendation that the motion be denied. The magistrate judge gave petitioner until July 13, 2012, to file his objections.
Petitioner on July 10, 2012, filed a document titled "Objection to Magistrate, Again, Entering An Appearance Without Consent and/or Waiver With a Request for a Three Judge Panel."As the time for filing his objections has now passed, the court can only conclude that the aforementioned document is intended by petitioner to be his objections to the magistrate judge's recommended denial of his motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal.
By order signed July 10, 2012, the court denied whatever relief petitioner attempted to seek by the filing of this document.
In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Rule 72 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the court makes a de novo determination of the magistrate judge's order to which specific objection is made. United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 673-75 (1980). The court's review finds that the petitioner's objections are without merit. The court is satisfied with the magistrate judge's findings. The court therefore overrules petitioner's objections and accepts the magistrate judge's recommendation to deny petitioner's application to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal.
Therefore,
The court ORDERS that petitioner's objections be, and are hereby, overruled.
The court further ORDERS that petitioner's motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal be, and is hereby, denied.
______________________
JOHN McBRYDE
UnitedStates District Judge