Kohute v. Greyhound Corporate Office

E.D. Texas

Kohute v. Greyhound Corporate Office

DecidedMarch 6, 2025

Docket6:24-cv-00476

StatusUnknown

This text of Kohute v. Greyhound Corporate Office (Kohute v. Greyhound Corporate Office) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Kohute v. Greyhound Corporate Office, (E.D. Tex. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS No. 6:24-cv-00476 Kevin James Kohute, Plaintiff, v. Greyhound Corporate Office, Defendant.

ORDER Plaintiff Kevin James Kohute, proceeding pro se, filed this ac- tion alleging violations of his constitutional rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Doc. 1. The case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge K. Nicole Mitchell pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). On January 13, 2025, the magistrate judge issued a report rec- ommending that the complaint be dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a claim and that plaintiff be warned against the con- tinued practice of filing frivolous lawsuits. Doc. 4. Plaintiff re- ceived the report on January 16, 2025. Doc. 5. He has not filed written objections. When a party fails to object to a magistrate judge’s report, the court reviews the record only for clear error. See Douglass ». United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1420 (5th Cir. 1996). Hav- ing reviewed the magistrate judge’s report, and being satisfied that it contains no clear error, the court accepts its findings and recommendation. Plaintiff’s action is dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a claim. Any pending motions are denied as moot. Consistent with the court’s sanction previously imposed, see Kohute v. Nat’! Rifle Ass’n, No. 6:24-cv-00475, Doc. 6 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 29, 2025), the clerk shall not accept any new lawsuits from Kevin Kohute unless such lawsuit is filed by an attorney licensed

-l-

to practice in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas and the full filing fee is paid at the outset of the case. Kohute is further cautioned that, should he continue to file frivolous documents in violation of his sanctions, the court will impose additional sanctions against him, including potential mon- etary sanctions. See Jackson v. Carpenter, 921 F.2d 68, 69 (5th Cir. 1991) (cautioning a pro se litigant that the continued abuse of the legal system “will trigger increasingly severe sanctions, including the ultimate denial of access to the judicial system absent specific prior court approval”). So ordered by the court on March 6, 2025. _fLaclooke BARKER United States District Judge

-2-

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS No. 6:24-cv-00476 Kevin James Kohute, Plaintiff, v. Greyhound Corporate Office, Defendant.

ORDER Plaintiff Kevin James Kohute, proceeding pro se, filed this ac- tion alleging violations of his constitutional rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Doc. 1. The case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge K. Nicole Mitchell pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). On January 13, 2025, the magistrate judge issued a report rec- ommending that the complaint be dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a claim and that plaintiff be warned against the con- tinued practice of filing frivolous lawsuits. Doc. 4. Plaintiff re- ceived the report on January 16, 2025. Doc. 5. He has not filed written objections. When a party fails to object to a magistrate judge’s report, the court reviews the record only for clear error. See Douglass ». United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1420 (5th Cir. 1996). Hav- ing reviewed the magistrate judge’s report, and being satisfied that it contains no clear error, the court accepts its findings and recommendation. Plaintiff’s action is dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a claim. Any pending motions are denied as moot. Consistent with the court’s sanction previously imposed, see Kohute v. Nat’! Rifle Ass’n, No. 6:24-cv-00475, Doc. 6 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 29, 2025), the clerk shall not accept any new lawsuits from Kevin Kohute unless such lawsuit is filed by an attorney licensed

-l-

to practice in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas and the full filing fee is paid at the outset of the case. Kohute is further cautioned that, should he continue to file frivolous documents in violation of his sanctions, the court will impose additional sanctions against him, including potential mon- etary sanctions. See Jackson v. Carpenter, 921 F.2d 68, 69 (5th Cir. 1991) (cautioning a pro se litigant that the continued abuse of the legal system “will trigger increasingly severe sanctions, including the ultimate denial of access to the judicial system absent specific prior court approval”). So ordered by the court on March 6, 2025. _fLaclooke BARKER United States District Judge

-2-

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Kohute v. Greyhound Corporate Office, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kohute-v-greyhound-corporate-office-txed-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack