UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE

KEVIN EDWARD CRESS, ) ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) No.: 3:23-CV-121-KAC-DCP v. ) ) JOSH RUSSEL, ) REBECCA RUSSEL, and ) ANGIE McDONALD, ) ) Defendants. )

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT & RECOMMENDATION AND DENYING MOTION FOR SUBPOENAS

Before the Court is United States Magistrate Judge Debra C. Poplin’s “Report and Recommendation” (“Report”) entered on June 6, 2023 [Doc. 5]. On April 10, 2023, Plaintiff filed an Application to Proceed in District Court without Prepaying Fees or Costs (“Application”) [Doc. 1]. Plaintiff did not include a certified copy of his trust fund account for the past six (6) months in his Application as is required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 [See id.]. So, on April 12, 2023, the Court entered an Order giving Plaintiff thirty (30) days “to submit the necessary documents” [Doc. 4 at 1]. The Court warned Plaintiff that “if he fails to fully timely comply with this order, the Court shall presume the Plaintiff is not a pauper, shall assess the full amount of fees, and shall order the case dismissed for want of prosecution” [Id. at 1-2]. Plaintiff failed to comply with the Court’s April 12 Order [See Doc. 5 at 1]. In her Report, Judge Poplin recommends that the Court (1) deny Plaintiff’s Application [Doc. 1]; (2) give Plaintiff an additional twenty-one (21) days to pay the filing fee; and (3) advise Plaintiff that failure to comply will result in a dismissal of his case without prejudice [Doc. 5 at 1- 2]. No Party has objected to the Report, and the time to do so has passed. See

(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). After reviewing the record, the Court ACCEPTS and ADOPTS Judge Poplin’s Report [Doc. 5] under

(b)(1) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)(2). The Court ORDERS as follows:

(1) The Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed in District Court without Prepaying Fees or Costs [Doc. 1]; (2) The Court ORDERS Plaintiff to pay the filing fee within twenty-one (21) days of entry of this Order; and (3) The Court WARNS Plaintiff that failure to timely pay the filing fee will result in dismissal of his case without prejudice. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Rogers v. City of Warren,

, 375 n.4 (6th Cir. 2008) (“Although Rule 41(b) does not expressly provide for a sua sponte dismissal (the rule actually provides for dismissal on defendant’s motion), it is well-settled that the district court can enter a sua sponte

order of dismissal under Rule 41(b).” (citing Link v. Wabash R.R.,

(1962))); E.D. Tenn. L.R. 83.13 (“The failure of a pro se plaintiff to timely respond to an order . . . may result in dismissal of the case or other appropriate action.”). In addition to the above, Plaintiff has recently filed a Motion for Issuance of Subpoenas [Doc. 6]. It is not appropriate to issue any subpoenas at this stage in the litigation, especially given Plaintiff’s failure to comply with prior Court orders. See

(e)(2),

1915A. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion for Issuance of Subpoenas [Doc. 6].

2 IT IS SO ORDERED. Vy KATHERINE A. ap United States District Judge