Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Jackson v. Confer

United States District Court, Middle District of Pennsylvania

July 21, 2014

DEONTRAE JACKSON, Plaintiff,
v.
JONATHAN CONFER and THOMAS MASE, Defendants.

Conner Chief Judge.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Susan E. Schwab United States Magistrate Judge

In this civil rights action, the pro se plaintiff, Deontrae Jackson (“Jackson”), a state prisoner, has filed a request to voluntarily withdraw his complaint. Doc. 8. According to Jackson, he no longer wants to proceed with this action because he cannot afford to have the filing fee deducted from his prisoner account in accordance with the in forma pauperis statute – 28 U.S.C. § 1915. See id.[1] In light of Jackson’s request, I recommend that this action be deemed voluntarily dismissed. I further recommend that: (1) Jackson’s second motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 5) be granted while his first in forma pauperis motion (Doc. 2) be denied as moot; and (2) his request to have the already deducted fees returned to him be denied.

In light of these recommendations, the parties are placed on notice that pursuant to Local Rule 72.3:

Any party may object to a magistrate judge's proposed findings, recommendations or report addressing a motion or matter described in 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) or making a recommendation for the disposition of a prisoner case or a habeas corpus petition within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy thereof. Such party shall file with the clerk of court, and serve on the magistrate judge and all parties, written objections which shall specifically identify the portions of the proposed findings, recommendations or report to which objection is made and the basis for such objections. The briefing requirements set forth in Local Rule 72.2 shall apply. A judge shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made and may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge. The judge, however, need conduct a new hearing only in his or her discretion or where required by law, and may consider the record developed before the magistrate judge, making his or her own determination on the basis of that record. The judge may also receive further evidence, recall witnesses or recommit the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.

Failure to file timely objections to the foregoing Report and Recommendation may constitute a waiver of any appellate rights.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.