Pasley #166717 v Oliver, No. 1:2007cv00583 - Document 38 (W.D. Mich. 2009)

Court Description: (VACATED BY OPINION AND ORDER 50 ) ORDER APPROVING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 35 ; granting defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment 31 ; this Court can discern no good-faith basis for an appeal; should plaintiff appeal this decision, the court will access the $455 appellate filing fee ; signed by Judge Janet T. Neff (Judge Janet T. Neff, sas) Modified text on 12/14/2009 (cep).

Download PDF
Pasley #166717 v Oliver Doc. 38 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION LYNN T. PASLEY, Plaintiff, Case No. 1:07-cv-583 v. Hon. Janet T. Neff UNKNOWN OLIVER, Defendant. / ORDER APPROVING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION The court has reviewed the Report and Recommendation filed by the United States Magistrate Judge in this action. The Report and Recommendation was duly served on the parties. No objections have been filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, filed August 18, 2009, is approved and adopted as the opinion of the court. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. #31) is GRANTED and plaintiff's complaint is DISMISSED for the reason(s) stated in the Report and Recommendation. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that upon review of Plaintiff’s claims, this Court can discern no good-faith basis for an appeal and so certifies in accordance with McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601, 611 (6th Cir. 1997). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that should plaintiff appeal this decision, the court will access the $455 appellate filing fee pursuant to § 1915(b)(1), see McGore, 114 F.3d at 610-11, unless plaintiff is barred from proceeding in forma pauperis, e.g., by the “three-strikes” rule of § 1915(g). If he is barred, he will be required to pay the $455 appellate filing fee in one lump sum. Dated: September 18, 2009 /s/Janet T. Neff JANET T. NEFF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Dockets.Justia.com

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.