Locke v. Stiles

E.D. Tennessee

Locke v. Stiles

DecidedOctober 18, 2023

Docket1:23-cv-00094

StatusUnknown

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

Bluebook

Locke v. Stiles, (E.D. Tenn. 2023).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE AT CHATTANOOGA

BILLY WAYNE LOCKE ) ) Case No. 1:23-cv-94 Plaintiff, ) ) Judge Travis R. McDonough v. ) ) Magistrate Judge Christopher H. Steger NATHAN STILES, ) ) Defendant. ) )

ORDER

Before the Court is Magistrate Judge Steger’s report and recommendation that the Court dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint (Doc. 14). Plaintiff filed this action pro se and moved to proceed in forma pauperis. (Docs. 1, 9.) Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, district courts must screen pro se complaints—even when the plaintiff is not a prisoner but seeks in forma pauperis status—and sua sponte dismiss any claims that are frivolous or malicious, fail to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or name a defendant who is immune. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2); Baker v. Wayne Cnty. Fam. Indep. Agency, 75 F. App’x 501, 502 (6th Cir. 2003) (“The statute requires courts to dismiss in forma pauperis complaints that fail to state a claim[] and applies to complaints filed by non- prisoners as well as prisoners.” (citations omitted)). Magistrate Judge Steger recommended that Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis be denied because he has filed three frivolous claims in this Court and because he does not now allege he is in imminent danger of serious physical injury. (Doc. 14, at 2 (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g)).) In doing so, Magistrate Judge Steger ordered Plaintiff to pay the Clerk of Court the $350.00 filing fee and warned that failure to do so would result in dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute. (Id. at 3.) It does not appear from the record that Plaintiff has paid the required fee within the provided time. After reviewing the record and the applicable law, the Court agrees with the magistrate judge’s findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendation. Therefore, the Court ACCEPTS and ADOPTS the report and recommendation (Doc. 14) and ORDERS that all of

Plaintiff’s complaint be DISMISSED for failure to prosecute. AN APPROPRIATE JUDGMENT WILL ENTER. /s/ Travis R. McDonough TRAVIS R. MCDONOUGH UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE AT CHATTANOOGA

BILLY WAYNE LOCKE ) ) Case No. 1:23-cv-94 Plaintiff, ) ) Judge Travis R. McDonough v. ) ) Magistrate Judge Christopher H. Steger NATHAN STILES, ) ) Defendant. ) )

ORDER

Before the Court is Magistrate Judge Steger’s report and recommendation that the Court dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint (Doc. 14). Plaintiff filed this action pro se and moved to proceed in forma pauperis. (Docs. 1, 9.) Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, district courts must screen pro se complaints—even when the plaintiff is not a prisoner but seeks in forma pauperis status—and sua sponte dismiss any claims that are frivolous or malicious, fail to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or name a defendant who is immune. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2); Baker v. Wayne Cnty. Fam. Indep. Agency, 75 F. App’x 501, 502 (6th Cir. 2003) (“The statute requires courts to dismiss in forma pauperis complaints that fail to state a claim[] and applies to complaints filed by non- prisoners as well as prisoners.” (citations omitted)). Magistrate Judge Steger recommended that Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis be denied because he has filed three frivolous claims in this Court and because he does not now allege he is in imminent danger of serious physical injury. (Doc. 14, at 2 (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g)).) In doing so, Magistrate Judge Steger ordered Plaintiff to pay the Clerk of Court the $350.00 filing fee and warned that failure to do so would result in dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute. (Id. at 3.) It does not appear from the record that Plaintiff has paid the required fee within the provided time. After reviewing the record and the applicable law, the Court agrees with the magistrate judge’s findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendation. Therefore, the Court ACCEPTS and ADOPTS the report and recommendation (Doc. 14) and ORDERS that all of

Plaintiff’s complaint be DISMISSED for failure to prosecute. AN APPROPRIATE JUDGMENT WILL ENTER. /s/ Travis R. McDonough TRAVIS R. MCDONOUGH UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Locke v. Stiles, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/locke-v-stiles-tned-2023.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack