Coyle v. Watson

S.D. Georgia

Coyle v. Watson

DecidedSeptember 23, 2025

Docket3:25-cv-00080

StatusUnknown

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

Bluebook

Coyle v. Watson, (S.D. Ga. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

DUBLIN DIVISION

JASON MICHAEL COYLE, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) CV 325-080 ) WARDEN KOCHELLE WATSON, ) ) Defendant. )

MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff, incarcerated at Johnson State Prison in Wrightsville, Georgia, commenced the above-captioned case pro se and requested permission to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). On July 29, 2025, the Court directed Plaintiff to return his Prisoner Trust Fund Account Statement and Consent to Collection of Fees forms within thirty days and advised Plaintiff all prisoners, even those proceeding IFP, must pay the filing fee of $350.00 in full. (See doc. no. 3, p. 1); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). Plaintiff was cautioned failure to respond would be an election to have this case voluntarily dismissed without prejudice. (Id. at 4.) The time to respond has passed, and although Plaintiff submitted the Prisoner Trust Fund Account Statement, (doc. no. 4), Plaintiff has not submitted the Consent to Collection of Fees form as required by the Court’s July 29th Order and has not provided the Court with any explanation as to why he has not complied. Plaintiff cannot proceed IFP unless he submits the requisite Trust Fund Account Statement and consents to collection of the entire $350.00 filing fee in installments. Wilson v. Sargent, 313 F.3d 1315, 1319, 1321 (11th Cir. 2002) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1915). Plaintiff has been warned that failing to return the necessary IFP papers would be an election to have his case voluntarily dismissed. (See doc. no. 3, p. 4.) As Plaintiff has neither fulfilled the requirements for proceeding IFP, nor paid the full filing fee, the Court REPORTS and RECOMMENDS this case be DISMISSED without prejudice and this civil action be CLOSED. Because this case is due to be dismissed, the pending motion for preliminary injunction should be DENIED AS MOOT. (Doc. no. 5.) SO REPORTED and RECOMMENDED this 23rd day of September, 2025, at Augusta, Georgia.

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

DUBLIN DIVISION

JASON MICHAEL COYLE, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) CV 325-080 ) WARDEN KOCHELLE WATSON, ) ) Defendant. )

MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff, incarcerated at Johnson State Prison in Wrightsville, Georgia, commenced the above-captioned case pro se and requested permission to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). On July 29, 2025, the Court directed Plaintiff to return his Prisoner Trust Fund Account Statement and Consent to Collection of Fees forms within thirty days and advised Plaintiff all prisoners, even those proceeding IFP, must pay the filing fee of $350.00 in full. (See doc. no. 3, p. 1); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). Plaintiff was cautioned failure to respond would be an election to have this case voluntarily dismissed without prejudice. (Id. at 4.) The time to respond has passed, and although Plaintiff submitted the Prisoner Trust Fund Account Statement, (doc. no. 4), Plaintiff has not submitted the Consent to Collection of Fees form as required by the Court’s July 29th Order and has not provided the Court with any explanation as to why he has not complied. Plaintiff cannot proceed IFP unless he submits the requisite Trust Fund Account Statement and consents to collection of the entire $350.00 filing fee in installments. Wilson v. Sargent, 313 F.3d 1315, 1319, 1321 (11th Cir. 2002) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1915). Plaintiff has been warned that failing to return the necessary IFP papers would be an election to have his case voluntarily dismissed. (See doc. no. 3, p. 4.) As Plaintiff has neither fulfilled the requirements for proceeding IFP, nor paid the full filing fee, the Court REPORTS and RECOMMENDS this case be DISMISSED without prejudice and this civil action be CLOSED. Because this case is due to be dismissed, the pending motion for preliminary injunction should be DENIED AS MOOT. (Doc. no. 5.) SO REPORTED and RECOMMENDED this 23rd day of September, 2025, at Augusta, Georgia.

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Coyle v. Watson, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/coyle-v-watson-gasd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack