BROWN v. ZAKEN

W.D. Pennsylvania

BROWN v. ZAKEN

DecidedApril 4, 2025

Docket2:23-cv-01649

StatusUnknown

This text of BROWN v. ZAKEN (BROWN v. ZAKEN) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

BROWN v. ZAKEN, (W.D. Pa. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA PITTSBURGH DIVISION RAYMOND BROWN, ) ) Civil Action No.: ) 2:23-CV-01649-CBB-MRH Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) United States Magistrate Judge ) Christopher B. Brown CORRECTIONAL OFFICER C. ) ) FOWLER, COORECTIONAL SGT. ) JOHN DOE, SUED INDIVIDUALLY ) AND IN OFFICIAL CAPACITY; AND ) COORECTIONAL OFFICER JOHN ) ) FOE, ) ) Defendants. )

ORDER REVOKING STATUS AND NOW, this 4th day of April, 2025, it is hereby ORDERED that Defendant C. Fowler’s motion to vacate order on motion for leave to proceed (“IFP”) ECF No. 75 is GRANTED and Brown’s IFP status is REVOKED in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action is dismissed without prejudice to Brown reopening it by paying the full statutory and administrative filing fees totaling $405.00. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Brown must submit the full statutory and administrative filing fees by May 5, 2025. If the full statutory and administrative filing fees are not submitted by that date, it will be recommended this case be dismissed with prejudice for failure to prosecute. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Brown’s pending Motion for Temporary Restraining Order ECF No. 66 is dismissed as moot.

Our Local Rules permit objections to non-dispositive determinations of Magistrate Judges. Therefore, under the Magistrate Judges Act, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), Rule 72 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and Rule 72.C.2 of the Local Rules of Court, Brown must file written objections, if any, to the Court’s determination by April 24, 2025. Brown is cautioned that failure to file Objections within this timeframe “will waive the right to appeal.” , 637

F.3d 187, 193 n.7 (3d Cir. 2011) (quoting , 700 F.2d 113, 116 (3d Cir. 1983). , 866 F.3d 93, 100 (3d Cir. 2017) (describing standard of appellate review when no timely and specific objections are filed as limited to review for plain error).

BY THE COURT:

s/Christopher B. Brown United States Magistrate Judge

cc: RAYMOND BROWN LT6439 SCI PHOENIX 1200 Mokychic Drive Collegeville, PA 19426

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA PITTSBURGH DIVISION RAYMOND BROWN, ) ) Civil Action No.: ) 2:23-CV-01649-CBB-MRH Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) United States Magistrate Judge ) Christopher B. Brown CORRECTIONAL OFFICER C. ) ) FOWLER, COORECTIONAL SGT. ) JOHN DOE, SUED INDIVIDUALLY ) AND IN OFFICIAL CAPACITY; AND ) COORECTIONAL OFFICER JOHN ) ) FOE, ) ) Defendants. )

ORDER REVOKING STATUS AND NOW, this 4th day of April, 2025, it is hereby ORDERED that Defendant C. Fowler’s motion to vacate order on motion for leave to proceed (“IFP”) ECF No. 75 is GRANTED and Brown’s IFP status is REVOKED in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action is dismissed without prejudice to Brown reopening it by paying the full statutory and administrative filing fees totaling $405.00. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Brown must submit the full statutory and administrative filing fees by May 5, 2025. If the full statutory and administrative filing fees are not submitted by that date, it will be recommended this case be dismissed with prejudice for failure to prosecute. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Brown’s pending Motion for Temporary Restraining Order ECF No. 66 is dismissed as moot.

Our Local Rules permit objections to non-dispositive determinations of Magistrate Judges. Therefore, under the Magistrate Judges Act, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), Rule 72 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and Rule 72.C.2 of the Local Rules of Court, Brown must file written objections, if any, to the Court’s determination by April 24, 2025. Brown is cautioned that failure to file Objections within this timeframe “will waive the right to appeal.” , 637

F.3d 187, 193 n.7 (3d Cir. 2011) (quoting , 700 F.2d 113, 116 (3d Cir. 1983). , 866 F.3d 93, 100 (3d Cir. 2017) (describing standard of appellate review when no timely and specific objections are filed as limited to review for plain error).

BY THE COURT:

s/Christopher B. Brown United States Magistrate Judge

cc: RAYMOND BROWN LT6439 SCI PHOENIX 1200 Mokychic Drive Collegeville, PA 19426

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

BROWN v. ZAKEN, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brown-v-zaken-pawd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack