Church v. United States of America

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE AT CHATTANOOGA William L.A. Church, et al., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) No.: 1:24-cv-13-KAC-CHS ) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., ) ) Defendants. ) ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION This criminal case is before the Court for consideration of the Report and Recommendation (“Report”) issued by United States Magistrate Christopher H. Steger [Doc. 6]. In that Report, Judge Steger recommends that the Court (1) deny Plaintiff Church’s Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis [Doc. 1] and (2) order Plaintiff Church to pay the filing fee or risk dismissal of this action because Plaintiff Church, who is currently a prisoner, has “on three prior occasions” “brought actions, while incarcerated, in the United States District Court, all of which have been dismissed for failure to state a claim” and he does not allege that “he is currently in imminent danger of serious physical injury” [See Doc. 6 at 6 (emphasis in original)]. See also 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

Plaintiff Church filed factual objections to the Report [Doc. 7]. For the reasons set forth below, the Court (1) OVERRULES Plaintiff Church’s objections [Doc. 7], (2) ADOPTS the Report [Doc. 6], (3) DENIES Plaintiff Church’s Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis [Doc. 1], and (4) ORDERS Plaintiff Church to pay the full $405 filing fee by September 12, 2024 or the Court will dismiss this action for failure to prosecute and comply with a Court order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).

Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), “[a] judge of the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). If a timely objection is made under Section 636(b)(1)(C) and that objection is not “frivolous, conclusive[,] or general,” Mira v. Marshall, 806 F.2d 636, 637 (6th Cir. 1986), “the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which [the] objection is made,” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). However, the Court need not engage in de novo review of undisputed portions of the Report. See Mira, 806 F.2d at 637.

In substance, Plaintiff Church objects that he “could not have filed” the three previous actions at issue in the Report and that he was “Not In Prison” when those actions were filed [See Doc. 7 at 1]. However, the record of those three actions conclusively shows otherwise. See Church v. NAACP, 1:93-cv-00371-RAE (E.D. Tenn.); Church v. U.S. Gov’t., 1:95-cv-00153-RAE (E.D. Tenn.); Church v. Tennessee, 1:95-cv-00154-RAE (E.D. Tenn.). Accordingly, the Court OVERRULES Plaintiff’s objections [Doc. 7] and ADOPTS the Report [Doc. 6].

The Court DENIES Plaintiff Church’s Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis [Doc. 1].

Further, the Court ORDERS Plaintiff Church to pay the full $405 filing fee by September 12, 2024. If Plaintiff does not timely pay the full filing fee, the Court will dismiss this action for failure to prosecute and comply with a Court order under Rule 41(b). See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); see also Schafer v. City of Defiance Police Dep’t, 529 F.3d 731, 736 (6th Cir. 2008).

SO ORDERED.

s/ Katherine A. Crytzer KATHERINE A. CRYTZER United States District Judge