Leffebre v. Russell et al, No. 6:2014cv00768 - Document 6 (E.D. Tex. 2015)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS. Relator's objections are overruled and the Report of the Magistrate Judge 4 is ADOPTED as the opinion of the District Court. Relator's application for leave to proceed in forma pauperi s 2 is hereby DENIED. The above-styled application for the writ of mandamus is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as to the refiling of another IFP application raising the same claims as herein presented, but without prejudice to the refiling of this action without seeking IFP status and upon payment of the statutory $400.00 filing fee. Should the Relator 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 as though the full fee had been paid from the outset. All motions which may be pending in this action are hereby DENIED. Signed by Judge Michael H. Schneider on 03/04/15. (mll, )

Download PDF
Leffebre v. Russell et al Doc. 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION ANDRE LEFFEBRE § v. § RANDI RUSSELL, ET AL. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:14cv768 MEMORANDUM ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE AND ENTERING FINAL JUDGMENT The Relator Andre Leffebre, proceeding pro se, filed this application seeking the issuance of a writ of mandamus. The underlying action is civil rather than criminal in nature. 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 recommending that Leffebre’s application be dismissed pursuant to the three-strike provision of 28 U.S.C. §1915(g). Leffebre filed objections to the Report arguing in essence that mandamus petitions do not fall under §1915(g). This contention is incorrect. In re Crittenden, 143 F.3d 919, 920 (5th Cir. 1998). The Court has conducted a careful de novo review of those portions of the Magistrate Judge’s proposed findings and recommendations to which the Relator objected. See 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1) (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.”) Upon such de novo review, the Court has determined that the Report of the Magistrate Judge is correct and the Relator’s objections are without merit. It is accordingly 1 Dockets.Justia.com ORDERED that the Relator’s objections are overruled and the Report of the Magistrate Judge (docket no. 4) is ADOPTED as the opinion of the District Court. It is further ORDERED that the Relator’s application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (docket no. 2) is hereby DENIED. It is further ORDERED that the above-styled application for the writ of mandamus be and hereby is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as to the refiling of another in forma pauperis application raising the same claims as herein presented, but without prejudice to the refiling of this action without seeking in forma pauperis status and upon payment of the statutory $400.00 filing fee. It . is further ORDERED that should the Relator 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 as though 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. It is SO ORDERED. SIGNED this 4th day of March, 2015. ____________________________________ MICHAEL H. SCHNEIDER 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.