Banks v. Pivnichny et al, No. 1:2015cv02065 - Document 5 (N.D. Ga. 2015)
Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER that Magistrate Judge Walter E. Johnson's Final Report and Recommendation 3 is ADOPTED and Plaintiff Frederick Banks' Application for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis 1 is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Signed by Judge William S. Duffey, Jr on 10/7/2015. (anc)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Banks v. Pivnichny et al Doc. 5 Dockets.Justia.com about his investments was too vague to determine his financial status, and ordered Plaintiff to pay the filing fee or submit a completed application to proceed in forma pauperis. (June 12, 2015, Order, [2] at 1). The Magistrate Judge admonished Plaintiff that his failure to comply with the June 12, 2015, Order, would result in a recommendation that the case be dismissed. Plaintiff did not pay the filing fee or file a completed application to proceed in forma pauperis. On July 13, 2015, the Magistrate Judge recommended that the Court deny Plaintiff’s Application without prejudice for Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Magistrate Judge’s June 12, 2015, Order. (R&R at 1-2). Plaintiff did not file any objections to the R&R. II. DISCUSSION A. Legal Standard After conducting a careful and complete review of the findings and recommendations, a district judge may accept, reject, or modify a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Williams v. Wainwright, 681 F.2d 732 (11th Cir. 1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1112 (1983). A district judge “shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). With respect to those findings and 2 recommendations to which objections have not been asserted, the Court must conduct a plain error review of the record. United States v. Slay, 714 F.2d 1093, 1095 (11th Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 1050 (1984). Plaintiff did not object to the R&R and the Court thus reviews it for plain error. B. Analysis The Magistrate Judge found that Plaintiff failed to comply with the June 12, 2015, Order, and recommended that the Court dismiss Plaintiff’s Application. The Court finds no plain error in the Magistrate Judge’s findings and recommendation. See Slay, 714 F.2d at 1095. Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Magistrate Judge’s June 12, 2015, Order, warrants the denial of Plaintiff’s application and the dismissal of Plaintiff’s case without prejudice. See LR 41.3(A)(2), NDGa. III. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Walter E. Johnson’s Final Report and Recommendation [3] is ADOPTED and Plaintiff Frederick Banks’ Application for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis [1] is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 3 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. SO ORDERED this 7th day of October, 2015. _______________________________ WILLIAM S. DUFFEY, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 4
]]>
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.
