Woodson v. Sharp

W.D. Oklahoma

Woodson v. Sharp

DecidedMarch 31, 2020

Docket5:20-cv-00256

StatusUnknown

This text of Woodson v. Sharp (Woodson v. Sharp) 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

Woodson v. Sharp, (W.D. Okla. 2020).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

MARCUS D. WOODSON, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) ) No. CIV-20-256-R v. ) ) TOMMY SHARP, Warden, ) ) Defendant. ) REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Before the Court is Petitioner’s Application for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. Doc. No. 6. Having reviewed said Application, the undersigned finds Petitioner has sufficient financial resources to pay the $5.00 filing fee. Doc. No. 6 at 4, 7, 8. Because he does not qualify for authorization to proceed without prepayment of the filing fee, Petitioner’s Application should be denied, and he should be required to pay the full filing fee for this action to proceed.

RECOMMENDATION Based on the foregoing findings, it is recommended the Application for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. No. 6) be DENIED and the action be dismissed without prejudice unless Petitioner pays the full filing fee to the Clerk of the Court by April 20th , 2020. Petitioner is advised of his right to file an objection to this Report and Recommendation with the Clerk of this Court by April 20° , 2020, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636 and LCvR 72.1. The failure to timely object to this Report and Recommendation would waive appellate review of the recommended ruling. Moore v. United States, 950 F.2d 656 (10th Cir. 1991); cf, Marshall v. Chater, 75 F.3d 1421, 1426 (10th Cir. 1996) (“Issues raised for the first time in objections to the magistrate judge’s recommendation are deemed waived.”). This Report and Recommendation disposes of all issues referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge in the captioned matter. ENTERED this day of _March, 2020.

Fi GARY M/MURCELL / UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUD

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

MARCUS D. WOODSON, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) ) No. CIV-20-256-R v. ) ) TOMMY SHARP, Warden, ) ) Defendant. ) REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Before the Court is Petitioner’s Application for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. Doc. No. 6. Having reviewed said Application, the undersigned finds Petitioner has sufficient financial resources to pay the $5.00 filing fee. Doc. No. 6 at 4, 7, 8. Because he does not qualify for authorization to proceed without prepayment of the filing fee, Petitioner’s Application should be denied, and he should be required to pay the full filing fee for this action to proceed.

RECOMMENDATION Based on the foregoing findings, it is recommended the Application for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. No. 6) be DENIED and the action be dismissed without prejudice unless Petitioner pays the full filing fee to the Clerk of the Court by April 20th , 2020. Petitioner is advised of his right to file an objection to this Report and Recommendation with the Clerk of this Court by April 20° , 2020, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636 and LCvR 72.1. The failure to timely object to this Report and Recommendation would waive appellate review of the recommended ruling. Moore v. United States, 950 F.2d 656 (10th Cir. 1991); cf, Marshall v. Chater, 75 F.3d 1421, 1426 (10th Cir. 1996) (“Issues raised for the first time in objections to the magistrate judge’s recommendation are deemed waived.”). This Report and Recommendation disposes of all issues referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge in the captioned matter. ENTERED this day of _March, 2020.

Fi GARY M/MURCELL / UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUD

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Woodson v. Sharp, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/woodson-v-sharp-okwd-2020.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack