-JDL Jones v. Rich et al, No. 6:2011cv00518 - Document 9 (E.D. Tex. 2012)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 5 Report and Recommendations, and denying 2 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis filed by Cecil Clayton Jones, Jr. This civil action is DISMISSED with prejudice as to the refiling of another IFP lawsuit raising the same cl aims as herein presented, but without prejudice to the refiling of this lawsuit without seeking IFP status and upon payment of the statutory $350.00 filing fee. Should the Plaintiff pay the full filing fee within 15 days after the date of entry of final judgment in this case, he shall be allowed to proceed in the lawsuit as through the full fee had been paid from the outset. All motions which may be pending in this action are hereby DENIED. Signed by Judge Leonard Davis on 01/10/12. cc:pltf 1-10-12(mll, )

Download PDF
-JDL Jones v. Rich et al Doc. 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION CECIL CLAYTON JONES #425998 § v. § WARDEN STEVEN RICH, ET AL. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:11cv518 MEMORANDUM ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE AND ENTERING FINAL JUDGMENT The Plaintiff Cecil Jones, proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. §1983 complaining of alleged violations of his constitutional rights. This Court ordered that the case be referred to the United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1) and (3) and the Amended Order for the Adoption of Local Rules for the Assignment of Duties to United States Magistrate Judges. After review of the pleadings, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report on October 6, 2011, recommending that the lawsuit be dismissed. The Magistrate Judge noted that Jones had previously filed at least three lawsuits or appeals which were dismissed as frivolous or for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, and was consequently subject to the “three-strikes” bar of 28 U.S.C. §1915(g). In this case, Jones did not pay the full filing fee or show that he was in imminent danger of serious physical injury. The Magistrate Judge recommended that the lawsuit be dismissed. A copy of this Report was sent to Jones by certified mail at his last known address, but no objections have been received; accordingly, he is barred from de novo review by the district judge of those findings, conclusions, and recommendations and, except upon grounds of plain error, from appellate review of the unobjected-to factual findings and legal conclusions accepted and adopted 1 Dockets.Justia.com by the district court. Douglass v. United Services Automobile Association, 79 F.3d 1415, 1430 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc). The Court has carefully reviewed the pleadings and documents in this case, as well as the Report of the Magistrate Judge. Upon such review, the Court has concluded that the Report of the Magistrate Judge is correct. It is accordingly ORDERED that the Report of the Magistrate Judge is hereby ADOPTED as the opinion of the District Court. It is further ORDERED that the Plaintiff’s application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (docket no. 2) is hereby DENIED. It is further ORDERED that the above-styled civil action be and hereby is DISMISSED with prejudice as to the refiling of another in forma pauperis lawsuit raising the same claims as herein presented, but without prejudice to the refiling of this lawsuit without seeking in forma pauperis status and upon payment of the statutory $350.00 filing fee. It is further ORDERED that should the Plaintiff pay the full filing fee within 15 days after the date of entry of final judgment in this case, he shall be allowed to proceed in the lawsuit as through the full fee had been paid from the outset. Finally, it is ORDERED that any and all motions which may be pending in this action are hereby DENIED. So ORDERED and SIGNED this 10th day of January, 2012. __________________________________ LEONARD DAVIS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.