Tarkington v. Williams

W.D. Oklahoma

Tarkington v. Williams

DecidedDecember 30, 2024

Docket5:24-cv-01347

StatusUnknown

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

Bluebook

Tarkington v. Williams, (W.D. Okla. 2024).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA ADRIAN ADAM TARKINGTON, ) ) Petitioner, ) ) vs. ) Case No. CIV-24-1347-SLP ) RICHARD WILLIAMS, ) ) Respondent. )

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Petitioner, a state prisoner appearing , has filed an Application (Motion) for Leave to Proceed and supporting affidavit (ECF No. 2). Pursuant to an order entered by United States District Judge Scott L. Palk, this matter has been referred to the undersigned magistrate judge for initial proceedings consistent with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). Having reviewed the Motion, the undersigned finds that Petitioner has sufficient funds in his inmate savings account to prepay the filing fee of $5.00. Because he does not qualify for authorization to proceed without prepayment of the filing fee, it is recommended that Petitioner’s Motion, (ECF No. 2) be DENIED and that he be ordered to prepay the full $5.00 filing fee for this action to proceed. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). , 408 F.3d 1309, 1312 (10th Cir. 2005) (magistrate judge should issue a report and recommendation when denying motion to proceed .). It is further recommended that this action be dismissed without prejudice to re- filing unless Petitioner pays the $5.00 filing fee in full to the Clerk of the Court within twenty (20) days of any order adopting this Report and Recommendation. Petitioner is advised that he may file an objection to this Report and Recommendation with the Clerk of this Court by January 16, 2025, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636 and Federal Rule Civil Procedure 72. Petitioner is further advised that any failure to make timely objection to this Report and Recommendation waives the right to appellate review of the factual and legal issues addressed herein. Casanova v. Ulibarri, 595 F.3d 1120, 1123 (10th Cir. 2010). This report and recommendation terminates the referral to the undersigned magistrate judge unless and until the matter is re-referred. ENTERED on December 30, 2024.

SHON T. ERWIN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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 OKLAHOMA ADRIAN ADAM TARKINGTON, ) ) Petitioner, ) ) vs. ) Case No. CIV-24-1347-SLP ) RICHARD WILLIAMS, ) ) Respondent. )

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Petitioner, a state prisoner appearing , has filed an Application (Motion) for Leave to Proceed and supporting affidavit (ECF No. 2). Pursuant to an order entered by United States District Judge Scott L. Palk, this matter has been referred to the undersigned magistrate judge for initial proceedings consistent with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). Having reviewed the Motion, the undersigned finds that Petitioner has sufficient funds in his inmate savings account to prepay the filing fee of $5.00. Because he does not qualify for authorization to proceed without prepayment of the filing fee, it is recommended that Petitioner’s Motion, (ECF No. 2) be DENIED and that he be ordered to prepay the full $5.00 filing fee for this action to proceed. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). , 408 F.3d 1309, 1312 (10th Cir. 2005) (magistrate judge should issue a report and recommendation when denying motion to proceed .). It is further recommended that this action be dismissed without prejudice to re- filing unless Petitioner pays the $5.00 filing fee in full to the Clerk of the Court within twenty (20) days of any order adopting this Report and Recommendation. Petitioner is advised that he may file an objection to this Report and Recommendation with the Clerk of this Court by January 16, 2025, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636 and Federal Rule Civil Procedure 72. Petitioner is further advised that any failure to make timely objection to this Report and Recommendation waives the right to appellate review of the factual and legal issues addressed herein. Casanova v. Ulibarri, 595 F.3d 1120, 1123 (10th Cir. 2010). This report and recommendation terminates the referral to the undersigned magistrate judge unless and until the matter is re-referred. ENTERED on December 30, 2024.

SHON T. ERWIN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Tarkington v. Williams, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tarkington-v-williams-okwd-2024.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack